Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Children and Education Policy and Accountability Committee held on 19 January 2015.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Children and Education Policy and Accountability Committee held on 19 January 2015 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings, subject to the following amendments:

(1)    page 7, minute number 40, second paragraph, replace the word “Medina” with “Midaye”; and

(2)    Page 7, minute number 40, third paragraph, replace the word “SEN” with “SME”.

Apologies for absence were received from Eleanor Allen, London Diocesan Board for Schools Representative.  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Sue Fennimore, Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion.

Nandini Ganesh, Parentsactive Representative, also sent apologies as she had to leave the meeting after the SEN Arrangements Agenda Item.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

In respect of agenda item 8, School Organisation and Investment Strategy report, the following significant interests were declared:

·         Councillor Caroline Ffiske as she was a governor of the West London Free School

·         Councillor Sue Macmillan as she was a governor of Wormholt Park Primary School

·         Councillor Natalia Perez Shepherd as she was a governor of Larmenier and Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School

·         Dennis Charman as he was a governor of Melcombe Primary School

·         Philippa O’Driscoll as she was Chair of Governors of St Augustine’s Primary School

·         Nadia Taylor as she was a parent governor at Avonmore Primary School

The above Councillors considered that this did not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests and, in the circumstances it would be reasonable to participate in the discussion and vote thereon.

In respect of the school meals commissioning item referred to in the Executive Director’s update report, Nadia Taylor declared a significant interest as she was a member of the schools working group for the remodelling of the school meals project. She considered that this did not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests and, in the circumstances it would be reasonable to participate in the discussion and vote thereon.

The requirements of the Children and Families Act, which came into effect from 1 September 2014, represent some of the most significant changes to the way that services are delivered for young people with special educational needs (SEN) in the past 30 years. The changes aim to improve cooperation between all the services that support children and their families. ‘Statements’ of SEN have been replaced with a new jointly assessed ‘Education, Health and Care plan’, which is available for an extended age range (from birth to 25). Local authorities are required to publish a ‘Local Offer’ outlining the provision that is available for young people with SEN and disabilities, and are required to offer families the option of a ‘personal budget’ with which to purchase services.

These changes have come into effect at a time when significant service changes are being made within the Special Educational Needs Service. These changes are to address the requirements of the Act and also to establish a shared service across Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster.

This report outlines the key developments since the last update was provided to the Committee.

Ian Heggs, Director of Schools, introduced the report which outlined the key developments since the last update provided to the Committee.  He noted that it was a huge period of change nationally for children, parents, schools and local authorities.  The report reflected on what well in terms of the implications of the changes, included feedback from parents and what needed to be done further in respect of the changes.  Alison Farmer, Assistant Director for Special Educational Needs, reported that the department was in the middle of establishing a new SEN service; 20 out of the 21 key workers who worked with parents were in post and a head of SEN had been appointed.

The transition arrangements were a three year programme, where existing statements would be transferred to the new plans.  The priority was for post 16 years, and work would then be done to transfer the other age groups.  A website was about to be launched for parents that included information in respect of SEN, so parents knew what they could access; this came about as a result of discussions with the parents group.

The Committee was invited to ask questions and the following was discussed:

Moving Locations

It was asked what happened to those who moved out of the borough and the Committee was told that the new local authority, where it was known, would be contacted, and information passed on with the parents’ permission; the new local authority would continue with the plan where the young person had one plan in place.

Transitions

In response to a question on the benefits of the new plans, it was reported that there have already been some benefits seen; at a headteachers meeting one of the headteachers commented that the new approach that had been adopted now was more parents centred and there were now practitioners to help parents so there was a more active role.  The approach was more about the outcomes the young people would achieve.  The new Education, Health and Care plans (EHC) clarified the health and social care provision and also the extent of the range of provision up to the age of 25. 

An example of better integration of services could be seen with the work that had started with health and social care colleagues to help bring together mental health provision alongside education.

Personal Budgets

One of the members referred to the personal budgets where parents were now in charge of the funds and not schools, which had caused some confusion, and asked what plans had been put in place in respect of the personal budgets.  It was reported that parents could request for the personal budget and could ask for a speech and language therapist for example, however the therapist would only be able to work in the school if agreed by the headteacher.  It had been found that in the last 6 months there had been less take up from parents of the personal budget than expected and one of the co-optees  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

To invite questions from members of the public present.

Members of the public with more complex issues are invited to submit their questions in advance in order to allow a more substantive answer to be given. Questions can be sent to the contact officer shown on the front page of the agenda.

There were no comments raised under this item.

To note the Executive Director’s update report.

Andrew Christie presented his update report.  In response to a question on whether any small businesses had been short listed in respect of the commissioning of school meals, it was reported that there were at least three small and medium enterprises that had been invited to tender.  Councillor Ben Coleman reported that the contract should have come back to procurement task force to be discussed but appeared to have gone ahead without being consulted on.  It was reported that the recommendations of the task force had gone to the lead members and officers would report back to the task force.  Rachael Wright-Turner would discuss this with Councillor Coleman outside of the meeting.

Action: Rachael Wright-Turner

The Chair referred to the item on child poverty, noting that this issue had been identified by the Youth Council as one of its priorities to look at, as well as looking at the living wage.  It was asked what key indicators were looked at in respect of child poverty, such as the use of food banks.  Andrew Christie noted that the child poverty item was a piece of work commissioned by the Health and Wellbeing Board, which intended to not just focus on issues relating to children but also other cross cutting issues such as housing, and the use of food banks would likely be considered as part of this.  The report would range from looking at creating opportunities, down to specific issues such as how to help families find routes into employment. 

Councillor Fennimore reported that there was a food bank strategy and one key area was to make sure schools were linked to food banks.  A copy of this report on food banks would come to the Committee when it was ready.  One co-optee asked that there was reference to the use of Pupil Premium (PP) in the report.  The Chair responded that she hoped for an update on the use of PP and the work done in relation to this at some stage in the future and the links between PP and child poverty could be looked at.

Councillor Sue Macmillan updated the Committee on the issues raised by the looked after children and care leavers in the session held before the previous meeting.  She reported that laptops had now been provided to 100 looked after children and care leavers in education, Wi-Fi in independent living arrangements was being commissioned and dongles were being provided until the Wi-Fi had been set up, the £30 limit for books had been removed and the parental contribution to university had been increased from £3K to £5K.  The Chair was pleased how quickly the concerns of the young people had been addressed.  She hoped that this would encourage young people that they would be listened to.

The Chair also referred to work done by Islington Council on e-safety which was available on its website.

The Committee was informed that through the economic development team, a number of firms had been approached to help promote the recruitment of foster carers.

Councillor Macmillan also reported that she was writing to independent schools to help find ways to facilitate them to be able to support state schools.

Attached is the draft School Organisation and Investment Strategy 2015 for the Committee’s consideration.

Ian Heggs, Director for Schools, introduced the report which was the strategy setting out projections and investment plans for the Council.  He commented that the Council was well provided for.  It was an important opportunity to look at projections, however it was noted that pupil place planning was not an exact science as there were a lot of factors concerned.

Alan Wharton, Head of Asset Strategy (Schools and Children’s Services), reported that the demand for school places was rising dramatically in some places.  As a result of the investment programme over the last few years, Hammersmith and Fulham was in a good place in terms of school population.   There was a sufficiency of places for primary schools up to the year 2020 and for secondary schools up to 2019.  He noted that there was no control over how many pupils moved across boroughs and the demand on places for Hammersmith and Fulham schools continued to be very high.

The Committee was told that the Council was currently consulting on the Local Plan.  The regeneration developments that had been proposed would have an impact on the projections however the strategy was reviewed on an annual basis so these impacts would be looked at.

The Committee was invited to ask questions on the strategy and the following points were discussed:

Admission Policies

In response to a question on schools being their own admission authority and whether the policies were checked, Ian Heggs reported that a lot of schools were their own admission authority and had to operate in accordance to the admission code.  Schools had a duty to consult when changing their policies and if they went ahead with changes that were not compliant with the code they could be challenged on this.

The use of a lottery to allocate places was discussed and it was reported that this was allowed in the admissions code.  It was noted that there had been some challenges to schools using a lottery code in respect of whether it was fair, clear and transparent.

Housing

It was asked if the increase in houses being converted into flats had an impact on school places and it was reported that this had not yet become apparent.  The local authority monitored trends and saw changes year on year.  It was well placed as there was sufficient capacity to meet demands but this was reviewed annually.

Secondary School Places 

The duty to provide a secondary school place to residents was raised noting that a place would be provided where it was requested.  There had been a slight increase in the number of parents choosing state schools, which would be a challenge for the admissions team; the admissions team would allocate a place for H&F residents but there would be a challenge if the school had a different admission policy.

An amended to the report was noted on page 44, to replace the figure “125%” with “25%”.

Child Yield

The Chair referred to discussions relating to planning in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

This report updates the Committee on the Two Year Old Programme as requested at a previous meeting.

Jackie Devine, Tri Borough Commissioning – Early Years, introduced the update report on the Two Year Old programme (TYO), noting that since the report was produced there were now 397 places for the offer and there was now a take up of 347.  There were enough places for those who wanted to take up the offer.  The DfE had done a survey on the take up and found the national average was 55.2%, the London average was 42.8% and Hammersmith and Fulham’s was 31.8%.  Hammersmith and Fulham’s take up had now increased to 53%, which was down to building further capacity and further marketing of the programme.  There were 80 places pending and a further 48 should be available by the end of the month.  There were two new providers and another two pending to take part in the programme.

Engagement with schools was done to encourage participation in the  programme and there was a DfE Early Years pilot that was taking place to encourage schools to be more flexible in the provision; three schools in Hammersmith and Fulham were taking part, which were Vanessa Nursery, Wendell Park Primary and Kenmont Primary.

There was a national campaign for the programme and work was done locally, such as updating the website with the information, information being available through the Family Information Service, a roadshow held in Kings Mall and a video produced showing local providers and interviewing parents which was available on the website for parents to view.  A steering group had been set up in November 2012 which met on a monthly basis to consider the programme and a marketing working group was also set up to help promote the offer.  There was an IT project underway which would allow parents to check their availability and apply online; it was hoped this would be available in the summer term.  In summary, there had been an increase in the number of places and take up and the department was on course in September to meet the 80% target for take up.  

The Committee was invited to ask questions and the following areas were discussed:

TYO and Three Year Offer Funding

A member referred to an issue previously raised about children turning three years old before September and asked what changes there were in the funding for that child; and also about the issue of them blocking a place, whether the projections included all those children. Jackie Devine responded that the issue relating to funding had been raised with the finance department and it was hoped there would be a solution, as at the moment the children turning three years old were funded under the TYO, and there were some sustainability issues with some providers which have been flagged up.  Increasing capacity was an issue and had been raised with the DfE as there would be points throughout the year which would be difficult, however at the moment the department was on target for places.  Engagement was done with schools as not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

This report provides a summary of activities that have been undertaken to date by the Childcare Task Group.

Councillor Natalia Perez Shepherd, Chair of the Childcare Task Group, introduced the report which gave an update on the Task Group’s work so far.  The Task Group had to date met five times, involving great expertise from four expert witnesses from Children’s Centres and nurseries; Michele Barrett (Head of Vanessa Nursery), Patricia Logan (Head of Bayonne Nursery), Michael Pettavel (Head of Randolph Beresford Early Years Centre) and Andy Sharpe (Masbro Centre).  She also noted that there had been great input from officers and thanked Jackie Devine, Rosemary Salliss, Steve Comber, Sue Spiller and Laura Campbell for their work.

The Task Group had engaged with a wide range of evidence, such as visiting the two Quality Childminders Forums in the borough, conducting an online survey for parents, holding a focus group with parents at the Masbro Centres, inviting representatives to the meetings for in-depth discussion including the Family Childcare Trust, West London Zone, and much more.

Councillor Perez Shepherd invited Members of the Committee to send in any recommendations and feedback in respect of the review and suggestions of any local providers to contact were welcomed.  The Task Group was still gathering evidence.  The next meeting would be held on 24 February, and the Committee was welcomed to attend.

A member of the public referred to a provider she worked for that was closing its crèche but had not consulted parents on this, noting her disappointment this had happened.  It was reported that this provider was not commissioned through the Council and it was thought that the funding was in the school’s budget and the school’s governing body had made the decision to close the facility.  Officers would check whether the funding was through the school and would get back to the member of the public on this.

Action: Rachael Wright-Turner

The Chair referred to how childcare was marketed so that parents could find out what was available and asked that the Task Group looked at this.  Councillor Perez Shepherd responded that following feedback as part of the review, one of the recommendations could be that the Family Information Service (FIS) be improved, as the website was not very accessible and the helpline number was costly for some parents.  She had requested a report on the FIS in respect of its services available to come to the next Task Group meeting.  The Chair also noted that it should be questioned how to reach parts of the community who the Council knew needed the services.  Councillor Perez Shepherd also reported that one of the Task Group’s suggestions was to make it easier to navigate the pages on the website for parents and that a process map of the parents journey relating to childcare be included to help make is easier to understand, so parents knew what options were available.  

The Chair thanked all those involved in the Task Group and invited them to come to the 20 April meeting where the final report would be considered.  She also invited all parents, carers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The Committee is asked to give consideration to its work programme for the current municipal year.  Attached is the latest list of key decisions for information.

In respect of the item on the work programme relating to the workload of teachers, one of the co-optees informed the Committee that the DfE had issued guidance and written to schools about this workload issue.  It was noted that many headteachers and teachers working at the local schools did not live in the borough, and it was asked that if the Committee wanted input from them at the meeting where this item was discussed, then plenty of notice was given to the headteachers and teachers so that they could plan to come along.  It was also suggested that the item be considered at the end of this academic year or at the beginning of the next academic year.

The Chair reported that she had been in discussions with the Youth Council (was previously the Borough Youth Forum) which had been redeveloped so that the young people representatives were now elected from schools.  The Youth Council preferred that instead of having a co-opted member on the CEPAC, that a member of the committee visited them to discuss issues.  The Chair would attend every other Youth Council meeting to liaise with them.  It had also been agreed that the Youth Council would prepare a report for the 20 April meeting on its work and priorities; many of its priorities mirrored those of the CEPAC, such as adolescent mental health.  Work with the Youth Council would be done on an issue based way and engagement would take place with young people on issues coming to CEPAC and the other policy and accountability committees.

The Chair also informed the Committee that a report on multi lingual families and how they were supported would come to the Committee at a future meeting.  The report would look at the cradle to university experience of multi lingual pupils and how they were supported in a multi lingual environment.

The Committee is asked to note the date of the next meeting, which is to be held on 20 April 2015.

The Committee noted that the next meeting would be held on 20 April 2015 at 7pm at Hammersmith Town Hall.