Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Rita Judge with Councillor Sital Punja substituting.

None.

Members requested that the following sentence be corrected:

“Members asked about the tightness in years 9 and 10, particularly in the north of the borough…”.

It was requested that “north” be corrected to “south”.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed, subject to the above amendment

Officers thanked Members for the opportunity to present this update.

Cabinet approved the delivery of the new Youth Offer in September 2023, and officers noted that they were on a journey of this implementation.

The Youth Offer consisted of three key teams: Universal, Targeted, and Community and Voluntary Sector.

The Universal team currently delivered a number of youth work and detached sessions from multiple community locations across the borough.

The Targeted team aimed to respond to emerging needs and their programmes were co-produced with young people.

The Community and Voluntary Sector team delivered the Holiday Activity and Food Programme (HAF) as well as support groups for young carers, Hillingdon Autistic Care and Support (HACS) and transition to Excel.

The implementation of the Youth Offer required a comprehensive and diverse approach, closely collaborating with organisations delivering programmes to children, and the National Youth Agency.

A five-year strategy had been developed that provided infrastructure for delivery and accountability of the new Youth Offer. This strategy focused on nine priority areas.

A workforce development plan had been created to guide recruitment and training. This included mandatory training and bespoke professional development. The ‘Stepping into Hillingdon’s Youth Offer’ training programme had been designed and delivered to the first cohort of new recruits in August and will continue to be rolled out with all new recruits as part of the induction process.

The teams continued to utilise flexible assets in the community including three young people’s centres, Uxbridge Family Hub, Hayes Family Hub, schools, libraries and community spaces. This ensured accessibility seven days a week.

A new communications strategy had been co-produced with the Corporate Communications team to advertise the Youth Offer. A thee-month campaign, named #NextGen by children and young people, was due to be launched with a launch event at the young people’s centre in Harlington. The communications strategy involved the creation of photographic materials and TikTok videos all co-produced with children and young people.

A young person who had been referred to the Targeted team was in attendance and addressed the Committee.

They had been referred to the team as they had been struggling with their mental health.

They now worked as a targeted reviewer and had been up and down the country undertaking consultation work for Hillingdon.

They had also been involved in two NCS trips, to Thorpe Park and to the Brentford Community Stadium.

Three members of the Youth Council were in attendance and addressed the Committee.

The first young person said that the Youth Offer was a good idea that brought everything together. It would help everyone and was accessible.

The second young person, who noted that they were a young carer whose mother had immigrated to the UK, noted that the Offer was impressive, and made it easier for everyone.

The third young person highlighted the use of TikTok, as this was a platform that was widely used by young people.

Members thanked the young people for attending, and asked officers about the most and least attended projects.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Note: the YouTube broadcast started at the beginning of this item.

The Chair noted that due to the attendance of young people, items 1-5 had not been broadcast on YouTube.

It was reiterated that this was a meeting held in public, not a public meeting and so there were no speaking rights for members of the public.

Officers provided an update on the delivery of the Family Hub Delivery Model and Early Years Nurseries.

On Family Hubs:

The Family Hub strategy had been presented to and ratified at Cabinet in September 2023.

A second Family Hub in Hayes had been open in January 2024. The two hubs (Uxbridge and Hayes) delivered services to young people aged 0-19, and up to 25 for those with SEND.

Highlights included a visit by Dame Andrea Leadsom, who spearheaded the early years healthy development review, in February and the publication of the "Start for Life" offer on the Council website.

A strategy to advertise the family hub services had been developed, including a family hub graphic on all communications and a short film showcasing the services.

The 0-19 service directory was on track to be published in January 2025.

The Stronger Families Partnership work was highlighted, including a partnership day at Hayes Working Men's Club attended by 130 delegates from both statutory and voluntary community sectors.

An outcomes framework was being developed to track and monitor the services more closely.

On Early Years Nurseries:

The Council was looking to source an alternative provider to maintain childcare on the sites, rather than delivering the services directly.

Surveys of the sites had been conducted and offers from three distinct providers had been received.

Negotiations were ongoing with one preferred provider, with a recommendation expected at Cabinet in December 2024.

Members inquired about how to reach new families and promote the services. Officers noted that they would be happy to engage in any community events. Officers were also able to distribute flyers. Officers were working with community leaders, Heathrow hotels and William Byrd Primary School to identify gaps in engagement.

Members further noted it was good to hear that parents were seeking support from other parents.

Members noted that it was great to see the progress made by the Hubs and asked about the data on repeat attendances. It was clarified that families were counted rather than unique individuals and so multiple people would count as one attendance. There may be repeat attendances for programs such as midwifery.

Members raised concerns about the suitability of family hubs for teenagers and older children. It was acknowledged that it was a challenge to provide an all-age space. Uxbridge Hub was zoned into different spaces for difference ages. Efforts were being made to make the spaces multi-purpose and welcoming for all age groups. Officers constantly reviewed what was offered. If hubs were not all-age, it would likely be that buildings would end up only used for a portion of the day. All-age spaces would maximise Council assets.

Members further raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Officers introduced a report on the proposal to lower the age range for three community schools. This would enable them to provide funded places for two-year-old children.

The early years childcare entitlements for children increased from April 2024, allowing funding for working families to access childcare for 15 hours a week. This entitlement increased from September 2024 for children aged 9 to 23 months and was set to increase further from September 2025 from 15 hours to up to 30 hours.

The local authority had a statutory responsibility to ensure sufficient childcare places across the borough for working parents and parents training or studying to enter employment.

The Council had been looking at childcare sufficiency and working under DfE guidelines to develop childcare provision. Officers noted that there was less sessional care available given the way in which the childcare offer had evolved over the years. Many sessional care providers such as play groups exited the market when certain additional requirements in terms of planning and children's learning and development profiles came on board.

Schools were well-placed to offer sessional care for younger children. Therefore, officers had spoken to schools and there were two different processes. The process for academies involved running their own consultation process, while the statutory mainstream provision required a formal process under DfE guidance, including public consultation.

It was noted that this report had come to the Select Committee for consideration and comments ahead of it going to Cabinet in December.

The three schools in question were Colham Manor, Field End Infants, and Minet Infant and Nursery School. They had all expressed a desire with their governing bodies' full support to lower their age range to offer two-year-old places by September 2025.

A public consultation has been held, and responses were being reviewed.

The Chair noted that the purpose of this item was to review the proposals, not to make a decision on them. The final decision would be taken by Cabinet.

Members expressed support for the proposal, recalling a similar initiative in the 1970s when the Council used spare class bases to develop nurseries. However, they cautioned about potential future increases in birth rates and the need for additional capacity.

It was noted that comments to Cabinet would be delegated.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

1. Noted the report; and

2. Delegated comments to Cabinet to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair, and in consultation with the Opposition Lead

Officers introduced the item on the proposed closure of the Specialist Resource Provision (SRP) for Physical Disabilities (PD) at Coteford Infant School.

Officers explained that the Local Authority was proposing to formally close the SRP at Coteford Infant School, which was an SRP for physical disabilities.

Historically, the SRP had 10 commissioned places, but due to declining demand, the number was reduced to seven, and currently, there were three children attending. Over the next year, only two children were expected to remain at the SRP.

The SRP at Coteford operated differently from a typical SRP, with no separate specialist resource provision room or facilities. The school operated as an inclusive mainstream school.

The proposal was more of a technicality, meaning no change for the children as they were already being supported in an inclusive mainstream environment.

The funding for the children would remain the same, with the place funding of £6,000 being replaced by exceptional funding of the same value to support schools that are highly inclusive.

This was about correctly commissioning places according to need. Historically, children may have been more likely to be part of an SRP for physical disability. Nowadays, there was an expectation on mainstream schools to accommodate these needs.

Many schools were DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliant.

It was noted that while the term ‘closure’ had to be used as per DfE requirements, there would be no change. There would only be a removal of the reference to an SRP.

An addendum had been published to correct an error in the report regarding including data in the report on children on the SEND register versus children with SEND support. Ordinarily, officers reported on EHCP and SEND support, and rarely reported on the SEND register.

A formal statutory consultation had been conducted from 25 September to 25 October 2024. The consultation included an online survey, a virtual event for families, and a face-to-face event at the school. The responses from the consultation were included in the consultation responses document. Officers acknowledged that there was some confusion and fear around the proposal.

Members sought reassurance that the proposed changes were purely technical and will not affect the children's experience or funding. Officers confirmed that the funding and support for the children will remain the same. There may be a difference in the provider of therapy, which would be agreed upon with the school, though the level of therapy would be the same as detailed in each child’s EHCP. Where therapy was provided in mainstream schools, this was commissioned through a contract with CNWL. SRPs tended to commission their own therapy. The funding mechanism would be slightly different but would be the same amount. There would no longer be ‘place funding’ of £6,000 for commissioned places, however officers committed to paying the same £6,000 of ‘exceptional funding’ where schools were over a certain percentage of children with an EHCP.  Coteford Infant School has a high level of EHCPs and were in receipt of this funding last year.

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Officers introduced the report on the proposal to extend the age range for the assessment base at Ruislip Gardens Primary School. This assessment base was a new type of provision aimed at identifying needs early and supporting children through the assessment process.

The current age range for the assessment base was three to five years old. The proposal was to extend this range to include two-year-olds, in exceptional circumstances. This would be beneficial for two-year-olds who were approaching their third birthday for example, and who would benefit from being part of the assessment base, and having their needs assessed earlier.

A formal statutory consultation had been conducted from 25 September to 25 October 2024. The consultation received 12 responses, and the aim was to ensure that as many children as possible can be supported through this provision.

Members expressed support for the proposal and inquired about the compliance with Building Bulletin 104 during the design of the assessment base. Officers confirmed that the design followed Building Bulletin 104 regulations.

It was noted that comments to Cabinet would be delegated.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families and Education Select Committee:

1. Reviewed the proposal to expand the current age range of the Specialist Assessment Base for 3-5 year olds at Ruislip Gardens Primary School to include 2-year olds when appropriate and necessary in exceptional circumstances;

2. Noted the consultation that has taken place; and

3. Delegated comments to Cabinet to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair, and in consultation with the Opposition Lead

Officers introduced the Draft Education Strategy 2024-2029, noting the rationale for the priorities and the range of consultation steps taken with school communities and education providers.

The strategy set out three main priorities, with the third priority combining elements of broader education work across the Council, including attendance and exclusions.

Officers emphasised the importance of collaborative working between schools and settings, which was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Members asked about the key differences between the new strategy and the previous one. Officers noted that while some elements remained the same, there were notable differences. Priority One reflected the identification by headteachers of reduced collaborative working between schools and settings which had been exacerbated by the COVID pandemic. The strategy emphasised the need to leverage the strengths of schools within Hillingdon to address area-wide challenges. The similarities were justified by data, indicating that certain issues, such as attendance and the disadvantage gap, persisted and required ongoing attention. These were national issues, however, it is crucial for the local area to address these issues closely and identify areas for improvement.  A key focus of the strategy was collaboration with partners, including Brunel University London and the Education Endowment Foundation.  This collaboration aimed to utilise evidence-based practices and share ideas to improve educational outcomes.  The data in the appendices showed that many groups were performing well, with some exceeding expectations. However, disadvantaged students, who made up just under 25% of the cohort, require focused attention to meet their school improvement priorities. Another difference from the previous strategy was that this one had been co-produced with young people, and covered a range of services including education and SEND.

Members praised the well-written report and the work done between officers and schools, and acknowledged the challenges in raising standards and narrowing gaps. Members asked about progress made since the last strategy.  Officers explained that while there has been progress, the pandemic had disrupted some efforts, and the new strategy aimed to build on existing strengths and address current challenges. Officers further noted that lots of schools in Hillingdon had fantastic results for their disadvantaged students.

Members asked about including citizenship education in the strategy. Officers noted that schools already delivered things around citizenship. During consultation with young people, topics such as this and financial awareness were raised. Officers further noted a recent instance where an Infant School had used polling booths to run mock elections. Officers further noted the intention to create a preparation for adulthood policy for Hillingdon.

Members asked about addressing emotionally based school non-attendance and suggested that this should be framed more broadly in terms of its relation to SEND, rather than just emotionally-based. Officers noted the national attendance issue, and there were a multitude of reasons for this. What officers were trying to do was to present to the school community that there was an area-wide problem and it was important to work together to tackle these issues. Officers acknowledged emerging data from mental health providers that there were large  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The Chair introduced the item on persistent absenteeism.

The Committee had now completed all of its witness sessions, and Members thanked all witnesses for taking part, especially the young people, noting the importance of capturing the voice of the child.

It was suggested that Members take some time to consider the notes from each of the witness sessions before formulating recommendations. This was agreed by Members.

Members thanked the Democratic Services Officer for organising and note-taking at the witness sessions.

Members proposed writing a letter of thanks to the young people for attending the witness session and contributing to the review. The idea was well-received, and it was agreed to bring this proposal forward.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

1. Considered draft findings and recommendations in relation to the review; and

2. Will write to the young people who attended the witness session to formally thank them for their participation

Members considered the Forward Plan.

It was noted that a number of the items considered at this Select Committee meeting were on the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting in December 2024.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the Forward Plan

The Chair introduced the Work Programme.

Members asked whether there would be a budget report upcoming. Officers would confirm.

Members proposed adding a further update on the Youth Offer to the work programme.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families and Education Select Committee considered the report and agreed any amendments