Venue: Conference Room 1, County Hall, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2DN
Contact: Dominic Mackie or Richard Plummer
Items
No.
Item
58/16
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Share this item
Minutes:
Apologies were received from Liz Bowes, Denis
Fuller and Simon Parr.
The Education and Skills Board welcomed Canon
Dr Stephen Green to the Board
It was also noted that, as a result of a change in role, Peter
Corns stepped down from the Board. It was stressed that the Surrey
Governors Association was running an election to determine two new
Parent Governor representatives.
To agree the minutes as a true record of the
meeting.
Minutes:
The minutes of the previous meeting were
agreed as a true and accurate record of the previous meeting.
It was noted that Wyatt Ramsdale was present
at the previous meeting
60/16
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
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:
There were no declarations of interest
made.
61/16
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
Share this item
To receive any questions or
petitions.
Notes:
1. The deadline for Member’s questions is
12.00pm four working days before the meeting (18 November
2016).
2. The deadline for public
questions is seven days before the meeting (17 November
2016)
3. The
deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no
petitions have been received.
Minutes:
There were no questions or petitions
received.
62/16
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SCRUTINY BOARD
Purpose of the report: To
further update the Education and Skills Board on the progress on
the performance of the Henrietta Parker Trust since April 2016.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Paul Hoffman,Principal, Community Learning and
Skills
Linda Kemeny,Cabinet Member
for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Officers noted the
previous issues identified in the audit which criticised the
utilisation of the Trust Fund. It was explained that the service
had implemented a management board to aid in resolving these issues
and noted that, as a result of this board’s input, the Trust
was utilising its funding more effectively.
TheOfficernoted that there was a positive number of enrolments
so far in the academic year, highlighting an improvement in IT
course take-up, as well as interest in other available courses. It
was noted that the Trust had updated IT equipment in Molesey to
improve the quality of service. It was also noted that the Trust
was subsidising courses in Molesey with the aim of improving access
for attendees. Members raised concerns regarding lower enrolment
rates in Woking and Camberley. It was noted that there was a higher
cost barrier for course attendees for IT courses which discouraged
take up in these areas.
It was
noted that if the service was targeting supporting 355 people into
learning. Member’s highlighted that this was a positive
ambition.
The Officer informed
Members that the service had undertaken a leafletting campaign to
promote the Henrietta Parker Adult Learning Centre. It was believed
by Management Board that the high course enrolment at Molesey was a
positive indicator of the success of this campaign and suggested
that a similar campaign could be used for other comparable
“paid-for” adult learning courses as a means of income
generation. It was also noted that there was a high enrolment rate
for new courses, such as cooking and the “Men’s
Shed,” which were highlighted as positive.
The Board commended
the positive progress that the Trust had made with regard to its
course options. It was particularly noted that the involvement with
the community was positive and that the service should be commended
for the work undertaken and noted that it should
continue.
To highlight key themes emerging from the
Surrey Education in Partnership programme.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Simon Griffin, Programme
Manager
Liz Mills,Assistant Director Schools &
Learning Linda Kemeny,Cabinet Member
for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Officers highlighted
that this was an interim report on the development phase of the
Surrey Education in Partnership (EiP) plan. It was noted that there
had been positive feedback in discussions
with key stakeholders to date.It was
highlighted that school head teachers, local groups and
partnerships had been invited to participate in the consultation
process.
Officers reported
that several key themes were highlighted in discussion with the
stakeholders including: school improvement, recruitment, funding
plans, governance and partnership development. Officers noted that,
during consultation with stakeholders, there had been some tensions
identified, which were a consequence of the blurred lines of
authority resulting from increased school autonomy and governance
changes.
Officers gave the
Board assurance that school improvement would remain a requirement
after changes to school governance arrangements. It was highlighted
that seven “coasting” maintained schools were being
targeted as part of the school improvement programme. It was
stressed that there was scope for some improvement with regard to
school peer support, particularly looking into the option of
providing support from Teaching Schools.
It was noted that the
recently appointed Assistant Regional Schools Commissioner, Maria
Dawes (RSC), was working closely with school governors and that
there was a meeting of the Surrey Governors Association which the
Assistant RSC was due to attend. It was highlighted that this close
working relationship was key to maintaining accountability of
schools.
The regional
differences between funding for Surrey and the London Boroughs was
highlighted as a concern by the Board, noting that Surrey County
Council receives £450 less per pupil than average London
boroughs. Officers noted that this issue was being queried by the
service with central government to find a solution to
this.
The Board suggested
the need for Officers to engage more closely with Local and Joint
Committees. Members explained that they could be useful to work in
partnership with and would have strong local connections to
schools, as well as being effective at engaging in an advisory and
consultative role. Officers agreed that local committees would be a
useful source for consultation and partnership and that they would
attend meetings of the local committees in future to build a
positive working relationship.
Officers noted that
consultation with individual schools was key to understanding
issues and pressures facing schools. It was also noted that this
was useful to building key partnerships and working relationships
with those schools. However, Officers pointed out that the service
was working to balance the relationship between leadership and
support for schools.
Robert Evans left the meeting at 11.17am
TheCabinet Member
for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement highlighted the
work of the Spelthorne Education Partnership, noting that this was
a successful partnership that could be emulated elsewhere in
Surrey.
Surrey County Council (SCC) is
spending more than it can afford on Special Education Needs and
Disabilities (SEND) transport and needs a brave and bold approach
to addressing this complex priority. There are no easy options due
to the sometimes challenging and complex needs of service users and
relationships with stakeholders. This paper is to provide members
with an overview of a new SEND Transport
Commissioning Programme, designed to address the challenges
the council is facing.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Gabrielle Close, Interim Head
of SEND Operations
Robert Kitt,Senior Category Specialist
Liz Mills, Assistant Director Schools &
Learning Linda
Kemeny,Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational
Achievement
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Officers highlighted
that there had been a significant increase in Special Educational
Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Transport costs. Officers had
recognised a need for a more fundamental and joined-up change to
the SEND Transport system was required and had commissioned a new
team with a new programme, the SEND Transport Commissioning
Programme October 2016, to resolve the underlying causes of this,
while maintaining high standards of service.
Officers noted that
this was a collaborative approach between the service, schools and
partners; such as Family Voice. It was emphasised that the SEND
Transport Commissioning Programme team was working closely with
these stakeholders to find new solutions to pilot in the first and
second quarters of the next financial year, after further
consultation has undertaken with schools.
Officers highlighted
that the SEND Transport Commissioning Programme team was improving
information sharing amongst partners and stakeholders of the
Council as a result of the new co-ordinated system and it was
agreed that there would be an ongoing process of
improvement.
Officers explained to
the Board that there were several potential new schemes that were
being considered for pilots, including:
Schools commissioning
their own transport services;
The leasing of a
suitable vehicle to families;
The implementation of
a Social Impact Bond (SIB) to help fund training for young people
with SEND to use public transport independently; and
The utilisation of
community transport organisations.
The Board queried the
use of Social Impact Bonds and if there would be any cost savings
from using “in-house” services. Officers noted that
there were no available “in-house” staff to deliver the
scheme, with specialist training, and that as a result this scheme
would require external resources. The Board questioned whether the
SEND Transport Commissioning Programme team could undertake a cost
analysis of whether the training of staff or the implementation of
a SIB would be more efficient.
Officers highlighted
that cost savings had been made by undertaking a more thorough
study into the needs of individual children as a result of the new
co-ordinated system. It was also noted that a dynamic purchase
system to improve competition between prospective providers was in
place to improve cost savings.
It was questioned by
Members whether there were any links with the County’s
independent schools in relation to SEND Transport provision.
Officers agreed that although the Transport Co-ordination Centre
(TCC) work closely with independent schools already, there was more
potential to be realised from the independent school
sector.
Members questioned
the high spend on SEND Transport per child in comparison to other
Local Authorities. Officers highlighted that there was a large
proportional number of children with complex SEND requirements in
Surrey. Members queried whether it was possible for the service to
provide a comparative breakdown ... view
the full minutes text for item 66/16
Purpose of the
report: Scrutiny of Services and
Budgets
The purpose of this report is to explain the
approach taken to consultation and engagement around Special
Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) in the light of the SEND
Code of Practice 2015, the principles of the SEND 2020
transformation programme and lessons learnt from previous
consultations.
Liz Mills, Assistant Director Schools &
Learning Linda
Kemeny,Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and
Educational Achievement
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Officers highlighted
the lessons learnt from previous consultation practices. It was
emphasised that this report was commissioned before the SEND
CQC-Ofsted inspection, and therefore contains no information
relating to that report, and came originally from the Board’s
last update on the Parent Guide for SEND Transport in
September.
Officers highlighted
the Parent Guide as an example of recent SEND consultation. Members
questioned the scale of the guide’s future circulation, with
officers noting that it would reach approximately 5000 families.
Members highlighted that the guide was useful and that the
consultation methods due to be in place were good.
The Board questioned
what constitutes as good practice within the service. Officers
noted that good practice within the service was focussed upon wide
ranging conversation with stakeholders. Members questioned whether
officers could provide a list of stakeholders that were engaged by
officers as part of this process.
Officers informed
Members that the service was undertaking comparative analysis with
other local authorities regarding how they engage with other Parent
Carer Forums. Officers agreed to circulate comparisons of other
operational models for local authorities with the Surrey
model.
It was highlighted by
Officers that some local authorities engage with a single statutory
consultative body similar to Family Voice, however, it was
emphasised that Surrey County Council consults with a wider range
of organisations.
Officers highlighted
that there was an ongoing challenge with regard to cultural change
towards greater consultation and family participation. It was
explained that this was a long term goal for the service.
Recommendations:
The Board requests
that Officers share a stakeholder grid, explaining who the
Service’s key stakeholders are and why they are on the
list.
The Board requests
that Officers provide a comparative benchmarking document
highlighting how other local authorities are handling their SEND
Services and engagement, including details on other family
partnership models, and the numbers of SEN residents they
represent.
The Board requests a
report on the Services continuing progress at the next
meeting.
68/16
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Share this item
That under Section 100(A) of the Local
Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during
consideration of the following items of business on the grounds
that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under
the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of the Schedule 12A of Act.
Minutes:
The Chairman informed the Board that should any
Member had wished to raise any matter relating to the Part 2 Annex
[Item 8], that the meeting needed to be taken into a Part 2
session.
The Board agreed for the item to be taken into Part 2, by virtue of
paragraph(s) 3, Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act
1972 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of
any particular person including the authority holding that
information).
This is a Part 2 annex relating to item 7 of
the agenda.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Paul Hoffman,Principal, Community Learning and
Skills
Linda Kemeny,Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational
Achievement
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families
Key
points raised in the discussion:
Members asked for a
clarification regarding the accounts of the HPT, noting that some
of the figures appeared to be erroneous.
Members questioned
the level of funding being held in cash reserves. Officers
responded that the Trust was working to resolve funding issues, and
that this was a work in progress.
Members requested if
there was a forecast available for the funds of the HPT for
2016/17. Officers agreed to circulate this to the
Board.
Recommendations:
The Board recommends
that the Henrietta Parker Trust Management Board has its finances
for the 2015/16 financial year checked and corrected, then
forwarded on to the Board again as a full account.
The Board requests a
financial forecast for the 2016/17 financial year.
70/16
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME [PART 2]
PDF 185 KB