Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 176 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Andrew Spragg or George Foster ,
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Derek Holbird and Chris Townsend.
Michael Hall acted as a substitute for Derek Holbird and Ernest Mallet acted as a substitute for Chris Townsend.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 26 March 2015
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The Committee noted that there was a mistake in the recorded Membership attendance in the minutes of the last meeting and the minutes did not reflect that the previous meeting concluded at 2.15pm. It was also noted that the Parent Governor Representative had been absent and their name should be deleted from the adjournment description.
Subject to the factual amendments, the minutes were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: Robert Evans informed the Committee that he is a part time lecturer at Royal Holloway University, he expressed this may affect his ability to vote.
|
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Thursday 7 May 2015). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Monday 4 May 2015). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: No questions or petitions were received.
|
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
There are no responses to report. Minutes: There were no responses to report.
The Chairman informed the Committee that this was Cecile White’s last attendance as a co-opted member of the Committee due to the end of her term; she expressed her thanks to Cecile for her four years of service and informed the Committee that two Parent Governor Representative vacancies had been circulated to Surrey governors.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Committee noted and agreed the Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme.
|
|
|
CORPORATE PARENTING: LEAD MEMBERS REPORT
Purpose of report: Scrutiny of Services
The Lead Member’s annual report provides an overview of the Corporate Parenting Board and its work through the previous year. The Committee is asked to review this alongside the accompanying reports for the Adoption Agency and Fostering Service.
The Committee is asked:
To review the Lead Member’s report
To scrutinise Adoption Agency and Fostering Service activity as presented in the Annual Reports
To note the Statements of Purpose for both Adoption and Fostering Services as required
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Sheila Jones, Head of County Wide Services, Children, Schools and Families Caroline Budden, Deputy Director, Children, Schools and Families Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children and Families Linda Kemeny, Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families introduced the report and informed the Committee that the aim of the Corporate Parenting Board was to achieve permanency for Looked After children by providing the right services for each child; this would ensure stability moving to independency. It was noted that once these were factored in, there would be a better chance of positive outcomes for looked after children. 2. The Committee were informed that extra funds such as the bursary awards and Celebration Fund made a difference to Looked After children by acknowledging achievements, it was added that the savings fund matches any savings made by the child rewarding their dedication.
3.
The Committee queried the emphasis of
collective responsibility; the view was expressed that the service
and Members should ask if they are doing enough to support
Corporate Parenting. The Cabinet Member
for Children and Families responded that the Corporate Parenting
Board offers training on an annual basis for members, this was
under three levels of understanding;
one for all Members and higher levels for Children and Education
Select Committee Members and Cabinet Members. It was expressed that 4. There was a discussion around safeguarding and the investigation of child sexual exploitation; it was commented that this was constantly changing and that there was a multi-agency approach and a renewed focus on old cases. The Committee were informed that the new Child Sexual Exploitation Strategy Group where arrangements and governance were reviewed at a senior level receives monitoring reports of the numbers of missing children and those causing concern. The Strategy Group, it was noted, is chaired by the Assistant Chief Constable and challenges operational work by determining a level of joint concern. The Strategy Group was currently working on protocols by finding commonalities in areas of concern and offering support to looked after children most at risk. It was added that processes and focus had become considerably more robust in the last 6 months. 5. The Committee were informed that Surrey’s children homes offered training on drug misuse and child sexual exploitation. Ofsted reported that the homes effectively assessed and had comprehensive risk monitoring procedures; it was noted that return interviews for missing children were all conducted on time. Historically, the data for young people who ran away was collected differently. The service now had one list of names and information for children who were Looked After which was reviewed each month. It was noted that in the last three to four months the number of instances where young people had gone missing had fluctuated between 100 and 150. This was inclusive of young people who went missing for short ... view the full minutes text for item 27/15 |
|
|
SCHOOL ATTAINMENT AND OUTCOMES - TRENDS AND THEMES
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets/Performance Management
This report presents an overview of the educational outcomes of children and young people in early years, primary, secondary, post 16 and special school phases for the academic year ending in the summer of 2014
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Maria Dawes, Head of School Effectiveness, Babcock 4S Rhona Barnfield, Chair of Secondary Phase Council Kate Keane, Chair of Primary Phase Council
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Committee were informed that number of schools inspected by Ofsted that achieved a good or outstanding judgement had increased by 4.5% compared to 1.5% nationally. 2. Officers informed the Committee that Central Government measures the level of progress from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2; two levels of improvement were expected. It was noted that there was a robust reporting system and all authorities were held to account by Central Government. Teacher assessments however could sometimes be inconsistent, so the service was working with Primary and Junior schools to collect robust monitoring data. 3. The Head of School Effectiveness informed the Committee that Surrey County Council had put in £1.9million a year for five years to implement the School Improvement Strategy while analysing the data. It was added that in the last year over 100 schools had been supported in Surrey through the strategy and that they saw attainment improving faster than the national average. 4. Officers explained that the percentage of Surrey children attending a good school had increased due to the extra school improvement funding and an increase in partnership working between schools and the local authority and school-to-school. It was added that academies are included in the School Improvement Strategy and still receive some School Improvement Programme support. It was stated that the service was always trying to make processes more robust and ensure that even ‘outstanding’ schools did not become complacent. 5. The Committee expressed that too much emphasis over the years had been on the results of SATS and judgements by Ofsted all of which created a pressure for schools to raise results. Less testing and monitoring should be considered to avoid the strain of raising results. Officers commented that the national curriculum had changed and as levels and SATS were taken away, tests would be reported differently. It was noted that Surrey was 1% behind the national average for maths at Key Stage 2 which was a 1% improvement from the previous year.
Liz Bowes left the room at 11:37am.
6. The Committee were informed that academy school improvement accountability sits with the Regional Schools Commissioner. In the case of some free schools, if they do not rapidly improve they would become academies. Twenty Academies had so far opted out of the first two years of the Surrey wide School Improvement Programme; two years into the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP).
Recommendations:
The Committee noted the report and recommends: • Acknowledgement of the ambitions and aspirations of Surrey schools and their governing bodies in achieving improvements in attainment for their pupils. • Commends the Cabinet Member for Schools & Learning for her steadfast support of the Schools Improvement Strategy.
David Goodwin left the room at 11.50am.
|
|
|
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF PUPIL PREMIUM IN REDUCING THE ATTAINMENT GAP
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
This report presents an overview of the educational outcomes of disadvantaged children and young people in early years, primary, secondary, post 16 and special school phases for the academic year ending in the summer of 2014.
In addition it considers the impact of Pupil Premium on improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in Surrey.
Minutes: Witnesses: Maria Dawes, Head of School Effectiveness, Babcock 4S Rhona Barnfield, Chair of Secondary Phase Council Kate Keane, Chair of Primary Phase Council
Ben Carasco left the room at 11.55am.
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Committee were informed that the service was working with school Heads to ensure children eligible for the Pupil Premium were identified. Currently 1 in 7 children in Surrey were in receipt of the Pupil Premium, compared to 2 in 7 nationally. It was noted that the biggest challenge was identifying eligible children but in recent years identification numbers have improved. However, Surrey is in the bottom three authorities nationally for children claiming free school meals.
Ben Carasco entered the room at 12.04pm. Robert Evans left the room at 12.04pm.
2. The Committee questioned why the number of disadvantaged children had increased. Officers commented that the number of parents not working had increased but numbers had mainly risen due to the drive to identify eligible children. 3. Officers were asked if the Pupil Premium could be used for teacher training; they explained that it was at the school’s discretion how to use the funds and that teacher training would be possible and could be useful. It was clarified that the funds had to be used within the school so it would not be possible to spend on qualifying new teachers. Officers added that the Pupil Premium had minimum restrictions to adapt to each school; schools in deprived areas for example could use Pupil Premium for school trips if this was beneficial to the child. Officers stated that the Virtual School manages the Pupil Premium funds for Looked After children. This Pupil Premium funding does not go to schools as the Virtual School has responsibility for Looked After children in Surrey wherever they attend school. 4. The Committee were informed that a Primary Vision Group was set up to challenge what schools are doing with the Pupil Premium moving forward.
Recommendations:
The Committee noted the report and thanked the witnesses for their detailed contributions. • The Committee recommends that in the future reports on the role of the Pupil Premium in reducing the attainment gap include a breakdown of attainment data by district & borough and areas of deprivation.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10am on 9 July 2015. Minutes: |