Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  To update the Education and Skills Board on the Surrey Area Review of Post-16 education.

Witnesses:

Frank Offer, Head of Commissioning and Development

Ron Searle, Secondary Phase Council Chair

Key points raised during discussion:

1.    The Officer explained to the Board the purpose of the Surrey Area Review, highlighting its nature as a central government led scheme focussing on post-16 education in dedicated Sixth Form colleges and general Further Education (FE) colleges. It primarily focussed on FE for young people, but that some attention was given to adult FE. The terms of reference of the review aimed to scrutinise the sustainability and financial resilience of these institutions. The Board expressed concerns with regards to the limitations of the review, noting that schools with internal Sixth Forms were not included, nor were academised schools, suggesting that the review may not provide a comprehensive view of FE in the Surrey area. It was also noted that any recommendations made by the review were not binding on schools.

2.    The review suggested that, while Surrey was ahead nationally on Level Three performance, it had a lower level of attainment with regard to pupils supported by free school meals, and that there was room for improvement with this.

3.    The Officer informed Members that the Employment and Skills Board had identified that, to meet local business demands, there was a need for increasing and developing FE provision in high growth, significant employments such as finance, IT, construction and new high-tech industries with particular focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) skills. The Employment and Skills Board also proposed a more comprehensive collaboration between employers and schools to help ascertain employer skill requirements whilst improving and informing school curriculum planning. It was suggested by Members that it may be beneficial for the Board to work with schools and local enterprise partners more closely to ascertain required skills and suggested that a more localised view was key to supporting this.

4.    It was queried by the Board why STEM subjects were less popular among FE students in Surrey, and whether the relative affluence of the county lead to a focus on arts teaching. The Chairman invited the Secondary Phase Council Chair to speak on the matter, who commented that, while Science and Mathematics were compulsory subjects in Surrey schools, it was their opinion that the reduction of vocational courses has had an impact on the prevalence of employable skills.

5.    It was highlighted that that there had been an increase in pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) requiring transport services to FE providers outside of county, and it was suggested that this may be a result of the provisions of Children and Families Act (2014), but that more research would have to be undertaken to identify this trend.

6.    The Board praised the proposals made in the Information Advice and Guidance (IAG), suggesting that they were effective in their role of influencing the curriculum.

7.    The Board queried the reasons for the higher numbers of children with SEND requiring Education, Health and Care Plans in comparison with other Local Authorities. Officers responded that a comprehensive review would be undertaken in Summer 2016 with regard to this, however a specific example was given with regard to Hertfordshire County Council’s use of Health and Care Plans; how the authority, schools and the health care system worked in “clusters” to determine whether support outside of the statutory framework could have been achieved. It was implied that a similar scheme in Surrey may work to reduce the numbers in a similar way, but that a review would be undertaken to ascertain this.

8.    The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement commented that the issue of children with SEND was being considered the SEND 2020 Partnership Board with particular focus on the identification of children at an early age, providing better Early Years support and aiming to reduce the probability that the child will require a Health and Care Plan. It was suggested that this was the optimal outcome for the child, as well as being the optimal financial course. The Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Families also commented that this proposal was favoured by the parents of children with SEND within the Family Voice group.

Margaret Hicks left the meeting at 10.28

9.    The Board questioned whether preparation for adulthood, particularly in the form of work experience and apprenticeships, were sufficient for young people. The Officer intimated that national policy had moved away from the focus on work experience in schools, leaving such schemes at the discretion of individual schools. The Board suggested that Officers do further work with local businesses and schools to encourage work experience and apprenticeship programmes for young people, citing the Enterprise Ambition Scheme as a good example of this.

10.  The Board expressed the opinion that it would be worthwhile to seek out student input on the subject of the Surrey Area Review.

11.  The Officer commented on the improvements made in the provision of apprenticeships in Surrey, but acknowledged that the region still fell below the national average of providing apprenticeships. The Board questioned why the level of apprenticeships was below average, and whether any steps could be taken to rectify it. The Officer suggested that regions with high levels of heavy industry were the most prolific at providing apprenticeships. It was noted that the Surrey region is not heavily industrialised, most employers being small to medium scale business, which limited the commercial viability of apprenticeships in this business demographic. However it was noted that the proposed Apprenticeship Levy policy may do some work to alleviate this problem.

12.  The Board also put forward a question relating to the length and quality of apprenticeships, and whether these were guaranteed by Surrey County Council. The Officer responded that central government announced, in February 2016, the establishment of the Institute for Apprenticeships as an independent body to support employer-led reforms and to monitor and regulate the quality of apprenticeships, and ensure that young people receive value from them.

13.  The Board commented on the impact of staff morale in the Surrey area and that this may have been overlooked in the Surrey Area Review. The Officer agreed that staff morale was a key factor in maintaining educational excellence and agreed that better staff engagement with similar area reviews was something to consider for the future.

14.  The Board offered their support to FE colleges and praised the work that they were doing to support aspiration and opportunity creation for young people in Surrey.

Recommendations

The Board recommends that:

1.    Officers circulate the Employment and Skills Board initial submission document from March 2016 for the Board’s reference.

2.    Officers circulate the final Area Review report to the Board, upon publication in Summer 2016.

3.    That the Board, or a sub-group of the Board, works in conjunction with officers to gather additional information, post-review, to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of what skills the local employment market requires and how this can be matched by Surrey schools.

4.    Officers encourage schools and Local Enterprise Partnerships to develop extensive, high quality work experience and apprenticeship programmes throughout Surrey that encourage flexibility, communication and teamwork skills. It was also suggested that officers report to the Board on what programmes are currently available, and details on uptake across the county.

5.    That Officers consider the how the development of work experience and apprenticeship programmes for pupils with SEND can help create a higher quality way of life for these students.