Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence received.

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 David Benson 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 in advance or urgent.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2011 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman following amendments to the declarations of interest being made as follows:-

Under Councillor Lindsay Bliss delete ‘Harefield Academy and change ‘He’ to ‘She’

Officers introduced the report on the update of the review recommendations on the Integrated Youth Support informing the committee of the main points.   The committee was also advised that the Integrated Youth Support Team (IYST) had been developed since the review had been undertaken.

The key outcome from the review was for the joining up of services to deliver integrated working to support vulnerable young people and their families.  Partnership working had been embedded into the Hillingdon Children & Families Trust Plan, would be submitted to Council Meeting on 8 September 2011.

There was evidence that since the introduction of the (IYST) there had been an increase in use of the support service, and families valued its input.

A member suggested that it would have been useful to have further information on the age range covered by the Trust and the partners forming the trust.   The report does not quantify the outcomes and targets. As this Integrated service had been in operation for sometime there must be a measure of success.

Members asked for information to be provided to them on the numbers of people using the integrated support services and the outcomes of the intervention.  Officers agreed to provide the information requested to members.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

Officers introduced the report stating that this was good news in terms of the update on the previous review recommendations.  Although the Aiming High grant had been reduced, there were plans to expand the short breaks provision.  This was being done through the expansion of the family link respite workers to 8 or 9 families.   This would reduce the number of out of borough placements and the long term residential provision.

A review was currently being undertaken on the Direct Payment scheme.  This was to ensure that the payments covered the total package and families were not being provided with the service twice.

A member asked how the transition from Howletts Lane Respite Care Home to Merryfields had gone and whether the outcome of the recent Ofsted visit was known.

Officers advised that the transition had gone smoothly.  This was very much a work in progress on how the service could be commissioned differently with the resources available.  There would be robust safeguards in place and rigorous procedures to check that any respite placements were meeting the required standards.  Inspection reports would also be carried out with the same rigour.

In regard to the Ofsted inspection, officers advised that the final letter had not yet been received but the outcomes were good and all other areas were satisfactory.

The committee thanked officers for the update and noted the report.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

Members were provided with a report which gave background information to the Elective Home Education policy.

Debbie Bell – Service Manager, Special Educational Needs, Behaviour & Attendance & Pupil Support Teachers, Paul Hewitt and Councillor Carol Melvin attended the meeting and provided the review with the following information:

·        There was a conflict between the Children Act and the Education Act 1996, and a more balanced approach to reflect both safeguarding issues and the rights of parents needed to form part of the policy.

·        Parents had rights to home educate and children had rights in relation to safeguarding.  There needed to be a consensus on the wording that was to be included in the policy.

·        The policy had not changed and had been in use since 2009.

·        Hillingdon currently had 93 children being home educated.

·        There was no obligation on parents to inform the Local Authority that they were home educating their child/children.

·        Parents were not obliged to submit an annual report.

·        The Local Authority (LA) sought to see a child annually.  This was not necessarily by the LA but by a recognised professional body advising that a child was safe.

·        The same letters had been sent out annually for many years, requesting annual reports and informing parents about visits.

·        There were a minority of home educating parents in Hillingdon that had concerns about the unannounced visits.

·        In Hillingdon 5% of home educating parents were illiterate and just under 5% were home educating due to religious and cultural reasons.  There were concerns whether this was good in preparing these children for adult life.

·        A majority of home educating parents were to be commended for the work they undertook on home educating their child.

·        The Elective Home Education (EHE) policy had been through due process and had taken into consideration and struck a balance between both the Education Act and the Children Act.

·        The policy was legally compliant and there was an overriding duty around safeguarding. 

·        There was a right for officers to see a child that had not been seen by another professional for a year or more.

·        Over the last 20 years there had been a number of case reviews, where it had been highlighted that no proper safeguarding measures had been put in place for a child not seen by professionals.

·        It was felt that the tension with the policy related to unannounced visits for those children that had not been seen by any professional for a year or more.  There would always be a minority of home educated children that needed to be safeguarded and there was a duty on LA officers to protect each child. 

·        There needed to be a balance between these two absolute rights for a child to be educated at home and to be safeguarded in the EHE policy.

·        A review was commissioned by the previous Government that highlighted a number of loopholes in relation to safeguarding.

·        The policy was introduced to ensure best practice was followed.

Councillor Melvin gave the following information on her meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

The committee received a report setting out the Education items on the Forward Plan for September 2011 to December 2012.

Resolved  - That the information in the report was noted.  

That the work programme be amended to make any necessary changes, as required.

Resolved – That the report be noted and that the Work Programme be updated as necessary.