Agenda and minutes

Councillor David Benson declared a general non-pecuniary interest as he was a Governor of Uxbridge High School and had lectured at further education colleges. He remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussions.

Councillor Lindsay Bliss declared a general non-pecuniary interest as she was a Governor of Brookside Primary School. She remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussions.

Councillor Judith Cooper declared a general non-pecuniary interest as she was a Governor of Charville, St Andrews and St Mary’s Schools. She remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussions.

Councillor Catherine Dann declared a general non-pecuniary 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 discussions.

Councillor Susan O’Brien declared a general non-pecuniary interest as she was a Governor at Sacred Heart Roman Catholic School and was working at Ruislip High School. She remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussions.

Tony Little declared a general non-pecuniary interest as he was a Governor at Pinkwell Primary School. He remained in the room during the meeting and took part in the discussions.

It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part 1.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

[The Committee asked that the request for the Service Manager – Performance and Intelligence to provide details of education complaint should be considered at the meeting on 20 February 2013.

It was confirmed that the Major Review - Safeguarding Children who are Reported Missing would be considered at the March meeting of Cabinet.

The Committee requested that officers ensure that a report on the arrangements for auditing and overseeing the safeguarding of partners via the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board be provided at the meeting on 17 April 2013.

The Chairman noted that the Leaving Care Grant report had been considered at Cabinet. Members of the Cabinet had extended their thanks to the Committee for their work on the report.]

Members were reminded that, at their last meeting held on 21 November 2012, it was agreed that the topic of their second major review would be on access to education for Hillingdon’s vulnerable children and young people.

The Committee was provided with a draft scoping report which set out the aim of the review as focussing on ensuring that current arrangements and future plans for access to education for vulnerable pupils was timely and effective. The review would look particularly at the key barriers facing vulnerable children and young people in accessing education outside of the normal education processes.

The Council’s Interim Chief Education Officer and Senior Manager for Access and Inclusion provided a presentation on the topic.

The Terms of Reference of the Review were agreed as follows:

§         To review the process for in-year admissions to schools and learn about the In-Year Fair Access Protocol (IYFAP) and the Managed Move and Inclusion Panel (MMIP). 

§         To review local arrangements for pupils without a school place.

§         To understand the local implications of statutory guidance relating to children’s access to education.

§         To understand pupil place planning in Hillingdon.

§         To review the practice around pupils who are not admitted to a school within 20 school days.

§         After due consideration of the above, to bring forward positive and practical policy recommendations (if needed), in relation to the Council’s in-year admissions processes for vulnerable children.

Members asked that officers provide data on the educational achievement of the vulnerable children and young people in question to inform the review.

Officers advised that such data could be produced but that it would not provide a full picture as many of the pupils in question were transferred in late in their education and many of the pupils did not have English as a first language.

Members also asked that officers provide a report on the current relationship between local authorities and schools which outlined whether the Council was losing the capacity to oversee education in the Borough.

Officers advised that it would be possible to provide such a report but that it would only be a snapshot in time as the relationship was continually progressing. It was also noted that different families of schools had different relationships with local authorities.

Members noted that looked after children should be included in the review as should the services provided to schools by external companies.

It was noted that Academies were not providing as much information as they could to the Council. It was suggested that a best practice guide be produced by the Council on what information they should be providing.

The Committee agreed that the list of potential witnesses for the review should be as follows:

Session 1 – 20 February 2013

• Lead Policy Officer from the Department for Education
• Interim Chief Education Officer
• Service Manager for Behaviour, Attendance and SEN
• Performance and Intelligence Manager

Session 2 – 20 March 2013

• Head Teacher of Hillingdon school
• Head Teacher of Hillingdon academy
• Chair of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Officers introduced the report informing the Committee of the key issues for both the Education and Children’s Services Budgets. It was noted that one of the main challenges in delivering a balanced budget in the context of the significant savings that had had to be made over the past three years.

It was noted that the Government was moving towards a national funding formula which was being forecast to lead to a £2.7 million reduction in the Council’s funding. This £2.7 million reduction had already been factored into the budget for 2013/14.

The Committee asked a number of questions as follows:-

Members asked whether the new funding formula would lead to schools losing funding for children with Special Educational Needs who may cost more to educate than other students.

Officers advised that the expectation was that school budgets would be of a sufficient size to ensure that children with Special Educational Needs would be adequately provided for.

Members commended the Multi Treatment Fostering Care Team’s targeting of 8 complex cases with the outcome of giving them intensive fostering support rather than residential placement and thereby achieving a cost reduction. It was asked whether there was any intention to expand this beyond the 8 current cases.

Officers advised that the 8 cases would be monitored and the decision to extend would be made based on their success.

Officers advised that the workloads of the Council’s Social Workers were under close review and that the aspiration was to bring case loads down to 15-18 from the current 25. It was noted that the Council was still struggling with high turnover rates for frontline Social Workers. A pod system in which cases and tasks were shared over a group of Social Workers was being used to provide additional support.

Members asked for an update on the use of the pod system at the Council at a future meeting.

The Committee’s comments on the Budget were agreed as follows:

“We note the various budget proposals and welcome the work of the Council in this demanding and complex area. We acknowledge the range of charges, costs and other emolument features. We welcome in particular the provision for the Leaving Care Grant and note other helpful financial provisions across the fiscal range in Education & Children’s Services. Additionally, we note the possible complexities impacting on funding for SEN children and acknowledge the work of professionals in this area.

We note the emerging success of the reconstituted Music Service in the Borough; and welcome the Multi-Treatment Fostering Care Service.”

Resolved: That the budget projections contained in the report be noted and the comments made by the Committee be submitted to Cabinet.

Officers advised that the inspector had indicated that the Council was on the cusp of ‘outstanding’ and was only not awarded this due to being unable to prove that improvement had been sustained for over two years. It was noted that staff morale was up because of the positive nature of the report.

Members asked that their appreciation and congratulations be passed to all of those involved in the inspection.

Resolved: That the Report be noted.

Resolved: That the Committee noted the Forward Plan and decided not to comment.

Resolved: That the Committee confirmed the dates of meetings.