To agree the minutes of the previous meeting
as a true and accurate record of proceedings.
Minutes:
The minutes of the previous meeting were
approved as a true and accurate record.
3/17
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter
(i)Any disclosable pecuniary interests and /
or
(ii)Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary
interest
·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Minutes:
Robert Evans declared a non-pecuniary interest
as a teacher at Royal Holloway
Liz Bowes declared a non-pecuniary interest as an Ofsted
inspector.
Colin Kemp declared a non-pecuniary interest as the director of the
Surrey Training Schools Network.
4/17
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 (Thursday 2 March
2017).
2. The deadline for public
questions is seven days before the meeting (Wednesday 1 March
2017)
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.
5/17
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SCRUTINY BOARD
Share this item
There are no responses to report.
Minutes:
There were no responses from the Cabinet to
issues referred.
Leigh Middleton, Senior Manager
Business Development
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Several concerns were raised by Members, highlighting that the
figures in Annex A did not provide a detailed overview as requested
in the recommendation referenced ESB 20/2016. Members highlighted that there was a necessity to draw out why
the service was paying significantly more than other statistical
neighbours for SEND Transport. Officers noted that there was a
significant amount of work underway to draw this information out
and the Independent Travel Training (ITT) offer was one aspect of
this that would be explored.
It
was explained by officers that a significant factor for high costs
within Surrey was due to the location of SEND provision within the
county and that this served to increase travel distances.
Officers shared with Members a modelling system to determine the
length of routes that were operated within Surrey, highlighting
that this was a useful tool to visualise the issue and also that it
was effective at allowing officers to establish more efficient ways
of providing transport. Members highlighted this software as a
significant improvement on previous models and praised the service
for actively working to clarify the cost issue that is apparent
from SEND Travel provisions.
It
was noted that there was consultation underway with parents to
ascertain potential future savings options, including parents
delivering their own travel, ITT, a short trips model and other
methods of delivery. However, Members requested caution within the
service that quality of provision must be maintained as the primary
concern for the service, rather than cost saving.
Members noted the interconnected nature of SEND transport issues
and highlighted that change would require a significant culture
shift within the service. However, the Board noted the positive
progress of the service and requested that updates be brought to
the Board to follow this.
Recommendations:
For Officers to provide a detailed report covering: further
details regarding the Council’s comparative SEND travel
spend, and other options and proposals for further future savings
in SEND transport.
Julie Page, Early Years Sector
Development Manager
Jo Jarvis, Assistant Head, Epsom Primary School
Frank Offer, Head of Market Strategy
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Officers explained to
the Board that the Early Years and Early Help services were being
designed as an integrated service as part of the Children, Schools
and Families Commissioning Programme. It was highlighted that, as
part of this integration there were savings and culture changes
being undertaken within the service and that a new Supporting
Families Manager had been appointed to support this.
Officers highlighted
there had been consultation with the childcare sector relating to
the implications of the National Funding Formula and the potential
issues that 30 hours provision would have on the sector. It was
explained that this shift would likely create some difficulties for
providers, particularly smaller ones. Members were informed that
the funding rate for providers would be agreed in Cabinet on
Tuesday 28 March 2017.
It was highlighted
that the service had a support fund available to help limit the
potential issues that may arise in the childcare sector as a result
of the change in provision requirements. It was noted that there would be a requirement for
31,000 places for children as a response to the new 30 hours
provision. Officers highlighted that the service held a statutory
responsibility under the provisions of the Children’s Act
(2014) to provide 30 hours free childcare and that the service had
a Sufficiency fund, provided by the County Council, and a
Sustainability fund, provided by central government, to ensure that
this statutory provision is met.
It was noted by
officers that approximately 8,450 children would be effected by the
new rules of provision and that a website was in development by the
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that would give parents the
accessibility to check eligibility for 30 hours childcare
provisions.
It was explained that
the majority of families eligible for 30 hours childcare provision
would be likely to apply for it, reflecting on trends from current
15 hour provision. Officers also outlined some feedback from parent
forums and networks. It noted that there had been a survey
undertaken of Surrey parents which outlined that 79% of parents
involved were likely to take up the childcare offer and that 43% of
that figure were already accessing a similar offer.
Officers noted the
concern that there was a risk of lack of provision across a
significant area of the county. It was highlighted that there were
projects in development to alleviate this issue and prepare for the
national launch of the 30 hours provision in September
2017.
Officers highlighted
that parent feedback implied that users of childcare would tend to
move to providers offering the 30 hour provision. It was suggested
that this would lead to parents driving the market for childcare
provision and would encourage providers to set up 30 hour provision
to respond to demand.
Mark Brett-Warburton, Chairman
of the SEND Task and Finish Group
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Members questioned
whether there was a potential for duplication of work with regard
to SEND issues, particularly noting the high frequency of SEND
items that have been received by the Board in the last council
year. It was explained that the Task Group was made up of Members
of four scrutiny boards and that this had helped create a
co-ordinated approach. Officers also highlighted that a refresh of
the Terms of Reference for the Task Group in the new council term
would serve to clarify issues around duplication of work.
Members highlighted
that an action plan for future strategic objectives of the Task
Group would be would be built into future work. This would include
a quarterly report to the Improvement Board and SEND Task Group.
Members noted that the report to the Task Group could help to set
out focus for improvement.
It was noted that a
significant stream of work for the SEND Task Group had been
focussed on the response of the Ofsted/Care Quality Commission
joint inspection of SEND services, 2016. The service had developed
a Written Statement of Action in response to this inspection which
would be delivered to Ofsted in March 2017. It was explained that
progress reviews regarding the Written Statement of Action would be
made with the responsible Cabinet Member, Improvement Board and
SEND Task Group.
The Cabinet Member
forSchools, Skills and Educational Achievement expressed the view
that the SEND Task Group was a key outlet for the improvement of
SEND services and that it should provide key input to the
improvement process.
Recommendations:
The
Board notes the progress made by the Joint SEND Task and Finish
Group.
Democratic Services Officers prepare a new Terms of Reference
for the SEND Task Group for the new Council term, and for Members
to provide comment and recommendations on its planned work
programme.
That,
following the local elections in May 2017, the SEND Task Group
should be reconvened with representation from each of the
appropriate scrutiny boards, to continue its work with refreshed
Terms of Reference.
That the Written
Statement of Action is circulated to the Board once
published.
Officers highlighted
the engagement process that had been undertaken as part of the
Education in Partnership programme, explaining that there had been
a wide ranging discussion with the Council’s schools and
partners. It was explained that there had been a good level of
school engagement, with a third of total schools in Surrey actively
participating.
It was explained that
the engagement process was important to the service to help develop
its ideas. These themes were expanded upon in the presentation
attached as Annex A. It was also noted that this engagement process
allowed schools to raise and discuss their concerns. It was
highlighted that the discussion during the engagement process was
primarily schools led.
Officers highlighted
several key areas of concern raised by schools; noting that schools
were particularly concerned regarding the potential loss of support
from the County Council with regard to school improvement.
Provision for children and young people with special educational
needs and disabilities (SEND), and the implementation of the
National Funding Formula was also highlighted as a key issue for
schools, particularly providers in rural areas. It explained that
there was a concern that schools could become less inclusive as a
result of these changes. However, it was noted that this provided
an opportunity to reassess area priorities and imbed positive
outcomes for vulnerable learners.
There were several
positive aspects raised regarding the programme, noting that there
was positive feedback relating to how the service was working well
in collaboration with schools.
Officers highlighted
the timeframes for delivery and noted that schools needed to be
confident in the transition to a schools led system.
It was noted by
officers that the funding for schools led improvement represented a
redistribution of national funding, and a reduction in the overall
amount nationally. It was explained that the figures presented to
the Board were not final and subject to revisions by the Department
of Education.
It was highlighted
that there had been positive engagement with local committees, and
that these groups had been provided information regarding Education
in Partnership proposals. However, officers noted that the service
had more work to do to engage with residents more effectively and
that local committees could serve to have a role in doing
this.
It was highlighted by
officers that the Children, Schools and Families directorate had
refreshed the School Organisation Plan, with the aim of ensuring
sufficiency of school places. The Cabinet Member forSchools, Skills
and Educational Achievement also noted that the Council could
insist that maintained schools take on “bulge” classes
to ensure enough school places are available.
Recommendations:
The Board recommends
that Officers share the Discovery Phase Engagement Feedback
document with Local Committee Chairmen.
The Board recommends that
Officers to report their progress to scrutiny in due
course.
10/17
PROPOSAL FOR IMPLEMENTING INDEPENDENT TRAVEL TRAINING FOR SEND CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
Purpose of
report:This report outlines the councils
work to implement Independent Travel Training (ITT) for SEND
children and young people (where appropriate). This report explains
the council’s proposal to work with provider and social
investor to fund ITT through a Social Impact Bond (SIB).The goal is to promote and develop SEND children and
young people’s independence throughout their life.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Leigh Middleton, Senior Manager Business Development
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key points raised in the discussion:
Officers highlighted
that the Independent Travel Training (ITT) scheme was a new scheme
to help deliver SEND Transport. It was noted that a similar scheme
had been attempted historically, but that it could be successfully
relaunched with positive outcomes.
Ben Carasco left the meeting at 12.15pm
It was noted that
some head teachers had fed back to officers that they considered
the Independent Travel Training (ITT) to be a positive initiative
and suggested that ITT could be provided to a significant number of
children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) who
utilise other services, such as private taxis.
Members raised
concerns regarding the suitability of blanket usage of the ITT
method. Officers highlighted that this would not be the case and
that there would be a robust process of three separate assessments
to determine if a child was suitable to undergo training. It was
also stressed that training would only be provided where
appropriate to improving outcomes for the child.
The officer explained
the training programme, highlighting that there would be a six week
training period to support children eligible. It was also explained
that the support would continue beyond the initial six week period
to ensure a sustained level of support for the child.
Officers explained
that the proposed ITT offer would initially train 90 – 115
children per annum and that provision could be increased upon
completion a successful pilot scheme. Officers also explained that
if a child who has undergone training changes education provider,
the service would provide new training to the child, but that this
training would more likely be of lower intensity. Members accepted
that this pilot period was necessary to determine effectiveness and
capacity but suggested that there could be expansion opportunities
for the scheme in the future.
Regarding the
scheme’s finances, it was noted by officers that the Social
Impact Bond (SIB) method in this case was the most robust method of
delivery, highlighting that the investor takes on the financial
risk with training. It was also highlighted that there was support
from central government for the scheme with “Big
Lottery” development funding.
Officers explained
that the ITT was part of a wider programme to reduce the
Council’s spend on SEND transport and that the ITT strategy
was an effective immediate cost saving measure.
Margaret Hicks left the meeting at
12.45pm
Members questioned
whether there were other savings opportunities with regard to
improving outcomes and lowering costs through communication with
parents. Members highlighted the better level of communication with
parents and suggested that this could form a basis to build on for
further consultation.
Members expressed
support for the scheme, agreeing that ITT could serve to provide
crucial life skills for children with SEND and improve outcomes for
the child.
The Board requested
that future proposals regarding SEND transport would be brought to
scrutiny, when available, at a later date.
Recommendation: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 had no questions relating to Part 2
items.
12/17
PUBLICITY FOR PART TWO ITEMS
Share this item
To consider whether any item
considered under Part Two of the agenda should be made available to
the Press and public.
Minutes:
The Board concluded that the items referred to in
the Part Two annex should not be made available to the public at
this time.
13/17
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The next meeting of the Board
will be held on the 15 June 2017 at County Hall
Minutes:
The next meeting of the Board will be held on
15 June 2017 at County Hall.
PDF 184 KB