Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor David Benson. Councillor Wayne Bridges attended in his place.

Councillor Catherine Dann declared a general Personal Interest as she was a Governor of Newham Junior School and Bishop Ramsay C of E School. She remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

Councillor Judith Cooper declared a general Personal Interest as she was a Governor of Charville & St Andrews Schools. She remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

Councillor Susan O’Brien declared a general Personal Interest as she was a Governor at Sacred Heart Roman Catholic School. She remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

Councillor Wayne Bridges declared general Personal Interest as he was a Governor of Uxbridge High School. He remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

Councillor John Riley declared a general Personal Interest as he was a Governor of Field End Infant School. He remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

Councillor Peter Curling declared a general Personal Interest as he was a Governor of Mellow Lane School and Harefield Academy. He remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

Councillor Lindsay Bliss declared a general Personal Interest as she was a Governor of Brookside Primary School. She remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

Tony Little declared a general Personal Interest as he was a Governor at Pinkwell & Harlington School. He remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussion.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

There had been no matters notified as urgent.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2011 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairmen, subject to Minute 29 First Major Witness Session 1 (first bullet point)being amended to note “the Education Act 1996” and not 1966 as stated.

Officers gave an update on the Inclusion Strategy which had been marked as ‘to follow ‘on the agenda and had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting.  Officers drew the Committee’s attention to note that there had been many changes to schools since the recommendations on the Strategy following the Committee’s Review in 2009. There had also been a requirement to change the format over the last few years, as the targets set in 2009 were to have been delivered by the schools and could not be achieved by officers.

It was explained that strategic action groups had been set up to look at the new format of the Strategy, which had been linked together with the primary Schools Inclusion Strategy. The focus now had shifted to what was a priority for the Local Authority (LA) rather than the work in schools, particularly as the LA now had less influence in schools.

The Committee heard that the Progress Update on Inclusion Strategy, as at October 2011 had been best fitted to the recommendations as far as possible. It was highlighted that as the Academy programme was continuing to progress as schools became autonomous, many targets in the Inclusion Strategy would be based on the ability of the LA to influence practices in schools.

 During discussion, the following points were noted:

• The schools were responsible for SEN - the LA became responsible once there was a requirement for a Statutory Assessment (where a child was “Statemented”).
• The LA had a responsibility to provide “Parent Partnership” to give advice to parents in respect of SEN and the LA also had a responsibility to provide Education Psychology Services to support the identification of SEN.
• Schools were very secure in their knowledge of SEN and valued the support from the Council’s School Improvement Officer. This process had proved very successful prior to schools opting for academy status.
• That it was possible for schools with an academy status to not communicate with the LA if they so wished.
•  Ultimately, there was a responsibility placed on schools and would be judged through their regulatory bodies which examined processes (The Office for Standard in Education, Children’s Services & Skills (Ofsted)).
• The LA’s views would be taken into account in respect of schools in “special measures”
• The Admissions process remained the same for children with SEN (Statemented).
• Although no outcomes had been set out in the Inclusion Strategy update, it was noted that outcomes for SEN in Hillingdon remained higher than for children in other local authorities.  This data had been circulated as part of the Annual Standard Quality in Education report, which was reported at the meeting in February 2011.
• That there had recently been a significant increase in the number of

      children coming into the Borough, which had resulted in all special       schools taking well over their required numbers.

• Children were still being sent out of the Borough and there was no option but to use non-maintained schools.
• The increase had come about as a result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The Chairman welcomed the witnesses for attending the meeting to give their views and experiences of Elective Home Education.

Michelle Connolly, Theresa Deng, Zoe Harland and Patrick Ansah who were parents and Jane Lowe from the Home Education Advisory Service (HEAS) provided the review with the following information:

• Educating the children at home had led to a positive experience for the children and positive development of the children. It had also enabled parents to impress their ethos and morals on their children.
• Preferred this way of educating their children as they saw how the children thrived and developed a thirst for learning.
• Suggested that there was no official line of informing the LA on issues.
• Staff in Education had little knowledge of Home Education.
• The only available support was through a Home Education Network Group, where parents met to do different activities together such as swimming and craft.
• Experienced negativity by unannounced visits from the LA. Considered that such visits appeared to cast a feeling of suspicion over families who chose to educate their children at home.
• Felt strongly that if a parent decided to home educate, this should not automatically present safeguarding issues in terms of the need for the involvement of Social Services.
• Did not consider that by allowing home visits, this would necessarily safeguard children.
• Strongly believed that according to the law relating to EHE, families were not legally obliged to engage with the LA.
• Considered that the Local Authority’s Policy had been tweaked to suit the Council’s position, as oppose to that stated in law.
• Perturbed by letters received threatening that if parents did not respond to the letters, the children would be taken and placed into schools.
• Had even received a call at work to be informed that the LA wanted to make a home visit.
• Had been asked to put children’s names on the Local Authority’s register of children whose parents had elected to educate them at home.
• Suggested that an antagonistic approach would not promote a positive relationship between the LA and parents.
• Stated that the LA did not appear to appreciate that a great deal of effort went into preparing the children for the Curriculum.
• Suggested that there was a need for roles to be clearly set out to enable open relationship between EHE parents and the LA.
• Announced that the HEAS, a National Registered Charity provided practical and legal support to HE parents and were aware that there were families who caused concerns. Suggested that families who gave cause for concern were usually well known from the earliest position.
• Suggested that the LA had the tools to intervene when there were problems in the care of children, as families were in receipt of services from different areas.
• Felt that all EHE families should not be viewed with suspicion.
• Indicated that there were a number of families home educating their children who did not want to be told what they should or should not teach.
• A parent suggested that they had had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

In introducing the report, officers advised that the Education Maintenance allowance (page 34 (5.10) mentioned in the report had now ended and had been replaced by the 16 – 19 Bursary Fund.

Given the issues raised during the witness session discussions, the Committee indicated that the Policy should be amended and reported back to a future meeting.

Officers advised that the amended Policy would be reported to the Committee once it had been reviewed by the Sub-Group of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board at its meeting on 4 November 2011.  It would then be reported to Cabinet for Approval. Members were invited to submit written comments to Deborah Bell - Service Manager, Special Needs Behaviour by the 3 November 2011.

The Committee received a report setting out the Education items on the Forward Plan listing forthcoming reports and decision to be made by Cabinet and individual Cabinet Members from October 2011 onwards.

Resolved – That the information in the report be noted.

The Committee indicated that a further witness session inviting young people who had been home educated and had progressed to college or university (or currently studying) would be valuable to the Review. This witness session would enable the Committee to gain an insight into the personal experiences of how the young people had benefited from having been home educated. Written submission would be welcomed also, as it was acknowledged that some young people may not wish to attend a meeting to relay their experience.

Resolved – That the work programme be noted and that it be updated as necessary.