Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 12 October 2011.

The record of the meeting held on 12 October 2011 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

To receive apologies for absence. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Craven and Tolhurst, Samantha Collins (Parent Governor representative), Lauraine McManus (Teacher representative), Richard Odle (Medway Youth Parliament representative) and Alex Tear (Church of England representative). 

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

The Chairman welcomed Noah Kantoh to his first meeting of the committee as a newly appointed Parent Governor representative.

The Chairman also congratulated Councillor Smith on being awarded the title of ‘Medway Governor of the Year’. 

(a)                Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

(c)            Whipping – the Council’s constitution also requires any Member of the Committee who is subject to a party whip (ie agreeing to vote in line with the majority view of a private party group meeting) to declare the existence of the whip

Councillor Royle declared a personal interest in relation to items 5 (Medway test arrangements) and 6 (Strategic planning for Special Educational Needs) as he was a governor at Chatham Grammar School for Boys and Chair of the management committees of both Silverbank Park and Will Adams Pupil Referral Units.

Councillor Cooper declared a personal interest in any reference to Saxon Way Primary School as she was a Community Governor at the school.  She also declared a personal interest in item 5 (Medway test arrangements) as her grandson had sat the test at Chatham Grammar School for Boys.

Councillor Purdy declared a personal interest in items 5 (Medway test arrangements) as she was a governor at Chatham Grammar School for Girls.

Councillor Irvine declared a personal interest in item 6 (Strategic planning for Special Educational Needs) as he worked for the MP for Rochester and Strood and part of the case work he was involved in included SEN tribunals.

This report responds to a request from a Member to receive a report on the arrangements for the Medway selection test and lessons learned.

Discussion:

Councillor Price introduced the report which he had requested following issues raised in relation to the arrangements of the Medway test, which took place on 24 September 2011.  He emphasised the need for children to have adequate refreshments, for venues to be free of other activities taking place at the same time and welcomed a possible move to the test being held in children’s own primary schools.

The Assistant Director, Commissioning and Strategy explained that the learning from the issues, which occurred at two test centres in Medway, including : -

·        The need for detailed planning being specific to each site;

·        The need for specific arrangements and responsibilities being detailed and clearly assigned;

·        Officers were consulting on whether to carry out the Medway test in children’s primary schools in future.  (The outcome of this consultation would be reported to the committee on 19 January 2011).

Members then asked officers a number of questions, including whether overview and scrutiny could have a role in signing off arrangements referred to in the risk section of the report.  Officers confirmed they were happy to bring the arrangements to overview and scrutiny.

Officers also explained that if testing was held in primary schools there would still need to be an independent training centre as lots of the children that take the test come from outside of Medway.

Decision: 

The committee agreed to note the report.

The report details the proposals for the development of additional Medway based special educational needs (SEN) provision and invites the committee to forward its comments to the Cabinet. 

Report to follow.

Discussion:

The Chairman explained that there had been requests for public speaking from some special schools and therefore suggested that each school be allowed three minutes to put forward their views, which was agreed by the committee.

Officers then introduced the report, explaining that current specialist provision was good or better in Medway and had been flexible and responsive to the needs of its children and young people.  The report used a technical evidence base to contribute to information of what needs are now and what they will be in the future, to develop proposals for additional provision for all levels of special educational needs (SEN).  They added that the proposals would provide approximately 300 additional places, with 98 places already planned and set out in the report.

The Headteacher of Abbey Court Special School, Mrs Joy, then addressed the committee, explaining that the school felt that the strategic planning provided an opportunity to look at and address the school’s accommodation.  She felt the report focused too much on pupil places and not enough on suitable accommodation.  The school were finding it increasingly difficult to deliver education at a 21^st century standard for children with profound physical and learning difficulties.  The two buildings the school operated from were not fit for purpose and space had been used imaginatively.  The corridors were too small, making it very difficult for children to move around the buildings.  Furthermore, children were taken by bus, 12 miles from Rainham to the Strood site to access the hydrotherapy pool there, which they needed as part of their care.  The gymnasiums were used as dining halls and so equipment was set up and taken down twice a day.  She added that the school was ambitious and wanted to teach more science, music and drama and build on its Duke of Edinburgh Award successes.  Mrs Joy also referred to a document she had sent to some Councillors who had visited the school, which presented some financial costings by the school, which it felt would enable it to move to one site, and urged the committee to support this.

The Headteacher of Rivermead Community Special School, Mrs Rogers, then addressed the committee, explaining that the school had historically been Medway’s hospital school but had been re-designated to a community special school recently.  The school was increasingly taking children with complex needs, mainly with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), which accounted for approximately 70% of the students.  She added that the school was currently in an old Victorian building, which was not practical for the school.  It also had a very small playground and had no green space.  Mrs Rogers then referred to the proposal for the school to move to part of the Chatham South site and explained that there were some concerns about this, which included; it being based on a longer timescale than the school had hoped and also that the site would be shared with Chatham Grammar School for Boys and so site security and how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 572.

The report details the proposals for the prescribed alterations to Bradfields Community Special School and invites the committee to forward its comments to the Cabinet. 

Discussion:

The School Organisation Officer introduced the report and explained that the report provided the outcome of the informal consultation on the prescribed alterations, which would then be reported back to Cabinet where it would then need to decide whether or not to continue with the statutory consultation of the proposals, before making a final decision.  There had been 174 responses to the consultation, with a majority of those in support.  The Officer explained the comments that had been received concerning the three proposals.

Members then asked officers a number of questions, which included: -

·        Confirmation that extra staff costs would be funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG);

·        Concern that the proposals were not being done in line with the Special Educational Needs (SEN) strategic planning;

·        Concern about the wide age range of students on one site;

·        Request that the reference to views of children, which had been omitted from paragraph 8.4 of the report, be included in the report to Cabinet;

·        Clarity of savings from resultant reduced costs of SEN transport and independent placements to be included in the report to Cabinet and that these savings should be ring-fenced for services to this group of children and young people.

In response, Officers explained that the proposals were in line with the SEN strategic planning process and confirmed that proposals were being put forward now because there was an increase in need for places for children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) who also present severe learning difficulties (SLD).  In addition, the empty school site next to Bradfields would deteriorate rapidly if it was not utilised.  Furthermore, the SEN Strategic planning would have to be done in phases due to funding streams and this was seen as part of the phasing towards that.  It was therefore requested that this be made clearer in the report to Cabinet.

Officers also explained that the wide age range was to enable spaces for very young children with ASD and SLD, as there were no spaces for these children, and would provide the school with the capacity to support young people with the transition into adulthood.

In relation to savings from reduced SEN transport and independent placement costs, officers explained that until the students were identified that would use the new unit they could not give specific figures, but would provide an estimated saving for the Cabinet report, as requested by the committee.

Decision:

The committee recommended the report to Cabinet, subject to the following additions to the report: -

·        Clarity on the alignment these proposals have to the SEN strategic planning;

·        Reference to children’s views being added to paragraph 8.4 of the report;

·        Estimated savings being included in relation to reduced SEN transport and independent placement costs and that these savings be ring-fenced for services for children and young people with special educational needs.

This report sets out quarter 2 performance against the Council Plan objectives for 2011/12 within this committee’s remit.  Members are asked to review content and consider progress.

Discussion:

The Director of Children and Adults introduced the report and referred to the briefing note, which had been circulated to the committee and provided further information following a request from Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  At its last meeting on 1 December 2011 the committee had requested that this committee be provided with additional information to explain what the service is doing to maximise the number of assessments completed in 10 days. 

The committee commented and asked questions which included: -

·        Reliance on bed and breakfast accommodation and concern about its quality and what the Council was doing to inspect properties and hold landlords to account;

·        School leadership and the key issues that were being found by the effective challenge of underperformance task group;

·        Resources in school staffing and what was being done to encourage parental engagement and volunteering;

·        The Luton and Wayfield project and the need to improve publicity of this to the local community and for a community centre to be established in the area;

·        Encouraging apprenticeships for care leavers, with the Council leading;

·        Concern that pupil data from two Medway schools had been misplaced by the Department for Education (DfE);

·        A request for the businesses involved in the apprentice schemes in Medway.

Officers responded and undertook to provide a briefing note on the bed and breakfast issues and the list of businesses involved in apprenticeship schemes.

In addition officers welcomed schools encouraging parental volunteering and hoped this would increase over time.  In terms of young people leaving care the Director confirmed the Council did support care leavers to access education, employment or training, for example, through contracts let by the Council as well as the Council itself as an employee.

In relation to the Luton and Wayfield project the Assistant Director, Commissioning and Strategy explained that there had been two to three community events to date and confirmed that one of the priorities identified and being considered was the use of public facilities for leisure and other activities.

In relation to the DfE error, the Director confirmed that the Council was working closely with colleagues at the DfE to reinstate the information onto the system, which had been submitted by the two schools.

Decision:

The committee noted the report and requested a list of businesses involved in apprenticeship schemes and a briefing note on bed and breakfast accommodation, inspection of such properties and what is being done to hold landlords to account.

This report will provide details of the proposed capital and revenue draft budgets for 2012/13 for the committee to consider and comment on.

Discussion:

The Finance Officer introduced the report which provided the draft capital and revenue budget for 2012/13, which had been proposed by the Cabinet on 29 November 2011 and was based on the principles contained in the Medium Term Financial Plan 2012/15 as well as reflecting formula grant assumptions.

Members then commented and asked questions, which included: -

·        Concern about the overspend on Special Educational Needs (SEN) transport;

·        Reasons behind the rise in expenditure in specialist children’s services, school reorganisation and student services and psychology and inclusion.

In response, officers explained that the overspend on SEN transport was due to the budget that was set for 2011/12 had not accurately reflected spend and confirmed that there had been a rise in SEN transport costs in line with the rise in children requiring SEN placements.

Officers further explained the rise in specific budget areas as follows: -

·        Specialist children’s services – this reflected an overspend which in turn reflected the rise in the number of looked after children.  It also reflected demographic estimates;

·        School organisation and student services – this reflected the cost of the school reorganisations;

·        Psychology and inclusion – this related to the SEN transport pressure.

Officers also undertook to provide, when appropriate, a briefing note on the educational funding changes.

Decision:

The committee noted the report and requested: -

·        a briefing note, when appropriate, on educational funding changes;

·        a report on costs analysis of SEN transport and what action is being undertaken to minimise overspend in this area.

This report sets out the proposed work programme previously agreed by the Committee for 2010/11. 

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report to the committee, highlighting to Members that the attendance of the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services had been deferred to the 14 March 2012 meeting and the report from the Medway Safeguarding Children Board had been deferred to the 19 January 2012 meeting.

Decision: 

The committee noted the report.