Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barrett, Griffin and Mahil and from David Lane (Parent Governor representative) and Geoffrey Matthews (Teacher).

To approve the record of the meeting held on 9 January 2020.

The record of the meeting held on 9 January 2020 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

There were none.

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct. Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 4.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

Fay Cordingley (Church of England Diocese representative) declared a DPI in item 5 (Annual Report on School Performance) due to her employment at St James’ Primary Academy and St Margaret’s Junior School but relied on a dispensation that had been granted by the Monitoring Officer, allowing her to participate in the item.

Nicola Forrest (Headteacher) declared a DPI in item 5 (Annual Report on School Performance) due to her employment at New Road Primary School but relied on a dispensation that had been granted by the Monitoring Officer, allowing her to participate in the item.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Cooper declared that she was a governor at Rivermead School, including RRR.

The Chairman announced that in relation to item 11 of the agenda (Medway Youth Justice Partnership Strategic Plan for 2020-2023), as there had been a recent HMIP Inspection of the youth offending team and its partnership arrangements, he was recommending that the committee defer consideration of the report to its next meeting in June, to allow for any learning from the inspection to be implemented within the report and strategy.

He also recommended that the Committee be provided with additional data and analysis around:

·         No further action undertaken by Kent Police

·         Out of Court Disposal

·         Court outcomes

·         Offending type

·         Data set over a four year period to identify trends.

The Committee agreed to defer the item to its next meeting.

The Annual Schools’ Performance Report for the school year 2018-19 is attached at Appendix 1.  This report provides the results at each Key Stage for maintained schools and academies. It also includes information on attendance and exclusions for 2017-18, the latest school year for which national data has been published and the provisional exclusions data for 2018-19.

Discussion:

The Chairman welcomed the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) for South London and the South East, Claire Burton, to the meeting. The RSC then explained her role to the Committee, including the partnership work between academy trusts, local authorities and diocese boards of education. She also referred to the work that was being done to support school leader networks to become self-sustaining so they could effectively support and challenge each other and share best practices, and to the inclusion programme that had been supported with funding from the RSC to work with the local authority in supporting primary schools in Medway with the highest levels of exclusions. The latter had resulted in a much improved performance with inclusive practices becoming established in those schools. Reference was also made to a recent letter sent to all schools from both the RSC and the local authority, reminding them of their duties to be inclusive for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), a priority focus for both.

Members then raised a number of questions and comments, which included:

·         Coasting schools – in response to concerns raised about coasting schools, the RSC confirmed that where schools were not showing year on year improvement, this was picked up at trust level. It was also confirmed that the definition relating to coasting schools was no longer used by the government but that Medway continued to track this information, in order to inform their identification of schools that required additional support. It was added that where academies did require additional support the RSC worked with the relevant trust to identify support in their development, in accessing available funding or in building capacity.

·         Criteria used for academisation – in response to a question about the criteria used when converting a school to an academy, the RSC explained this was dependent on the circumstances. Where a school voluntarily wished to convert to an academy, the RSC would look to ensure the trust involved had the capacity to support the school effectively and that the match between the two was considered to be a good one. Where a school was subject to a direct academy order, this would mean the school was judged to be inadequate or in special measures.

·         Medway Cultural Education Partnership (MCEP) – in response to a question about how the MCEP had supported work to reduce exclusions in secondary school, officers explained that the MCEP, which had been part funded from a successful bid with the Royal Opera House Bridge, was a pilot programme working with two secondary schools and 52 feeder primary schools to support pupils in their transition from Year 6 to Year 7 and reduce exclusions at this point of their education. The evaluation had been very positive and learning was being cascaded to all schools in Medway.

·         Widened responsibilities of the RSC – the RSC confirmed during the discussion that the role had been widened to include additional functions such as free school delivery and pupil place planning (working with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 746.

This report details the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools for the period from March 2019-2020. In the case of education services, it covers the results of the school year 2018-19 and activity during that year and the first half of the current school year.

This report has been circulated separately to the main agenda as it was necessary to undertake further work with the Portfolio Holder in finalising the report. Therefore, the Committee is asked to accept this report as urgent to enable the holding to account of the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, to take place alongside the Committee’s consideration of the Annual Report on School Performance (item 5 on the same agenda).

Discussion:

Members received a report providing an overview of progress on the areas within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, as set out below:

·         Early Years

·         Education Safeguarding

·         Further Education and Higher Education Liaison

·         Mainstream School Transport

·         Newly Qualified Teachers

·         Primary and Secondary Educational Improvement

·         School Organisation and Capital Projects

·         School Services (including Admissions and Medway Test)

·         Schools Liaison

·         Youth Champion (including Medway Youth Council)

The Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools responded to Members’ questions and comments, which included:

·         Stalled improvement at Key Stage 1 and 2 – a Member raised concern that at key stage 1, six fewer schools achieved the expected standard in 2019 and in Key Stage 2 the previous accelerated progress had stalled.  The Portfolio Holder referred to the previous poor performance at Key Stage 2, where Medway had been joint bottom in the country and was now within 1% of the national average, which had made Medway one of the most improved education areas.  Work with schools was continuing to strengthen sector leadership but support for schools individually was provided where necessary.  The point was also made that for some schools, because of the cohort of children, reaching the expected targets would be difficult but that they may still demonstrate excellent accelerated progress between Key Stages 1 and 2, therefore some contextualising of the data was necessary, to understand pupil progress as well as performance.

·         Early Years Funding – in response to a question about Early Years provision and associated funding, the Portfolio Holder confirmed his confidence in there being adequate provision in Medway and that whilst acknowledging the challenge that was presented when funding policies changed, providing additional children with funded nursery places, the local authority had worked with providers to respond to that challenge to ensure demand was met.

·         Waterfront University Technical College (UTC) – in response to references made about the UTC and concerns the Committee had raised following its last Ofsted judgement, the Portfolio Holder confirmed he attended the UTC every term in the previous year and was looking to organise a further visit imminently. He reported that the UTC had made huge improvements, with intake now starting from Year 9 and young people attending the school through choice, rather than because they had exhausted other options.

·         Partnership Risk Ratings – in response to a query the Portfolio Holder confirmed that this was used by officers to identify issues at risk meetings with schools, although this currently only related to schools maintained by the local authority.

·         Liaison with School Governors – in response to a question the Portfolio Holder responded that the statutory role in supporting governing bodies was commissioned to The Education People and added that he did liaise with governors, although this was limited compared to his liaison with Headteachers. The Interim Assistant Director, Education and SEND added that briefings were provided to governing bodies and meetings with them took place as and when required. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 747.

This report details the area covered by the Portfolio Holder for Adults’ Services that is covered by this committee. The areas within the portfolio are listed each time a Cabinet Member is invited to attend any of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees to be held to account.

Discussion:

Members received a report providing an overview of progress on the area within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Portfolio Holder for Adults’ Services, which related to the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) Service.

The Portfolio Holder for Adults’ Services responded to Members’ questions and comments, which included:

·         The Child’s Voice – in response to a question, the Portfolio Holder confirmed the service was working hard to improve the participation of children and young people in Looked After Children Reviews. The Head of Safeguarding and Quality Assurance added that the service was considering a variety of creative ways in engaging children and young people, amongst which included a consultation booklet co-produced and designed by young people, with support from the Young Lives Foundation, and increased use of the Mind of My Own app, a tool which enabled social workers to capture the thoughts, feelings and views from children and young people.  With this work she was confident performance around this would see an upward trend.

·         Percentage of children looked after with all reviews in timescales within the last 12 months – in response to a concern raised about the performance of this (detailed at section 4 of the report), which had declined, the Portfolio Holder explained that this related to instability in the workforce, which had since been addressed and therefore performance was anticipated to improve. 

·         Mind of My Own app – in response to a request for further detail about how the app worked, the Head of Safeguarding and Quality Assurance confirmed that the app was downloaded with parent/carer consent and the user account sat with a significant adult in the child’s life, such as their parent, social worker, foster carer or youth worker.  It was an easy to use app with which the young person could use to record their feelings or views on an issue and was a tool to enrich other engagement with the young person, not to replace it.

·         Siblings and birth families – in response to a question as to whether consideration was given to birth families, and in particular, siblings, it was confirmed that it was a central consideration to plans for children and was a definite feature in decision making.

·         Impact of a more stabilised workforce – the Portfolio Holder explained there had previously been a problem with staff retention, with some choosing to move to agencies for increased salary benefits.  More recently this had been less of an issue and the workforce was stabilising.  The Head of Safeguarding and Quality Assurance added that all staff in the IRO service and the Child Protection Conference Services were now permanent with two new members of staff due to join the teams imminently.  This had had a positive impact on reducing caseloads and improving the quality of work, which was the top priority.

Decision:

The Portfolio Holder for Adults’ Services was thanked for his attendance.

This annual report provides an account of the role of the Lead Member for Children’s Services as identified in the Department for Education Statutory Guidance on the Roles and Responsibilities of the Director of Children’s Services (DCS) and the Lead Member for Children’s Services (LMCS) (DfE 2012). This report details the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services – Lead Member and covers the period from May 2019 – March 2020.

Discussion:

Members received a report providing an overview of progress on the areas within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member), as set out below:

·         Children’s Partnership Commissioning (0-25)

·         Children’s Provider Services (including Adoption, Fostering, Supported Accommodation and Residential Care)

·         Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding Services including Safeguarding Board

·         Early help (including Medway Action for Families, Youth Offending Team (YOT) and Youth Services)

·         Inclusion

·         Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

·         SEND Transport

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member) responded to Members’ questions and comments, which included:

·         Early Help – in response to a question the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the diagnostic exercise carried out by Medway’s Partner in Practice, Essex County Council, had recently been reported to the Improvement Board and work would commence on the findings of that exercise.

·         Signs of Safety – in response to a query about the social work practice model, signs of safety, the Portfolio Holder confirmed this was a reflective practice model which focused on the child and the family and was helping to provide job satisfaction for social workers.  She added that its use was also helping with recruitment as many social workers wanted to work for authorities that use this practice model.

·         Recruitment of ten overseas social workers– following a request for an update on this the Director of People – Children and Adults Services confirmed that ten social workers had been recruited from Zimbabwe and South Africa and they would be commencing their employment at Medway in two cohorts, the first of which would start next week.

·         Corporate Parenting Board– in response to a question about what happens to advice and issues raised from the Board, which was set up in Medway as a Cabinet Advisory Group, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the Board needed to escalate issues through the relevant services, as required.  She also welcomed the suggestion of the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools being invited to attend in relation to education safeguarding, for which he had responsibility.

·         Learning lessons– the Portfolio Holder reassured the Committee that lessons were being learned during the improvement journey and would continue to be as the action plan was implemented and improvements were embedded into the service.

·         Staff morale– the Portfolio Holder explained that staff morale had greatly improved since the outcome of the Ofsted inspection in the summer of 2019, which had been detrimental to morale amongst staff in the service.  She added that the re-alignment of area teams and the reduced caseloads had also helped improve morale and that she visited Broadside on a weekly basis and to liaise with staff and expressed her appreciation of the children’s services workforce.

·         Waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services– concern was raised about waiting lists for mental health services, which were provided by NELFT. The Portfolio Holder commented that waiting lists were still an issue. Despite the time being approximately 50% shorter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 749.

This report provides an update on progress made since the outcome of the Ofsted Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS) inspection in July 2019.

Discussion:

The Director of People – Children and Adults introduced the report which provided an update on progress made since the Ofsted Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services (ILACS). He updated the Committee on the following: -

·         Change of Independent Chair of the Improvement Board, who would be invited to attend a meeting of the Committee later in the year;

·         The first Ofsted Monitoring Visit, which would take place on 18 and 19 March 2020 and would focus on the Assessment Teams and Early Help hubs;

·         The realignment of the service which had restructured the children’s teams into two areas, safeguarding and children who are looked after;

·         Work undertaken with Essex County Council in relation to social work practice early help and assessment and that further work would take place with Essex County Council in relation to fostering services and services for children with disabilities;

·         The role out of training in relation to ‘signs of safety’ practice;

·         Recruitment to the Assistant Director, Children’s Services and Heads of Service posts.

Members then raised a number of questions and comments, which included a request that reporting should increasingly demonstrate impact. The Director confirmed that impact was starting to be reported to the Improvement Board and would start featuring in update reports to the Committee. He added that the recent substantial investment into children’s social care and a reduction in caseloads should start to impact on demonstrable improved quality of practice.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and requested future reports to reflect the impact of actions being undertaken to improve children’s services.

This report and appendices summarise how we performed in Quarter 3 of 2019/20 on the delivery of the two priorities within Medway’s Council Plan 2016/21, relevant for this Committee: supporting Medway’s people to realise their potential and maximising regeneration and economic growth.

In accordance with the Council’s Risk Management Strategy, this report also includes the Quarter 3 2019/20 review of the strategic risks pertaining to this committee.

Discussion:

The Director of People – Children and Adults Services introduced the report and summarised key issues for the Committee which included:

·         Performance relating to childhood obesity and it was recommended that a report on this issue be added to the Committee’s work programme.

·         Numbers of children looked after, which was broadly in line with national averages.

·         The increase in children subject to a child protection plan and the high rate of section 47 enquiries undertaken by Medway, which was a specific area being looked at by the service

·         The percentage of permanent social workers, adding that 10 social workers had recently been recruited from Zimbabwe and South Africa and were due to start shortly. He commented that more staff were choosing to stay at Medway following reduced caseloads and realignment of services.

·         The number of children who are not in education, employment or training (NEET), explaining that staff shortages in the Information, Advice and Guidance Team had been addressed, which was enabling the service to better track young people. However, there was an issue with training providers, a large number of which had come to the end of their funding and had therefore withdrawn their offer, the impact of which was a loss of approximately 140 places. This was a concern which was being looked at by the Medway Skills Board to try and address this shortfall in provision.

Members then raised a number of questions and comments, which included:

·         Average number of days between a child entering care and moving in with adoptive family – in response to a query about the target for this measure and whether it should be reviewed the Director confirmed that with the target would be reviewed in the context of the forthcoming regionalised service.

·         NEETs – in response to a question about how providers had been funded, the Director explained that funding was sought from a number of sources and providers were being supported through the Skills Board to access further funding and mitigate impact and suggested that further information on this work be provided via a briefing note.

·         Childhood obesity – Members welcomed the opportunity for further scrutiny on this issue. Reference was also made to the withdrawal of the sports premium funding for schools and that this needed to be considered in the context of how sports and physical activity opportunities within schools and community settings could be maximised.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and requested:

·         Child hood obesity be added to the Committee’s work programme

·         A briefing note in relation to the work being done to mitigate the impact of a reduction of providers of training courses.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, requires Local Authorities to have a Youth Justice Plan which is annually updated to set out how youth justice will be delivered locally within available resources. This plan (attached at Appendix 1) will cover a 3 year period form 2020 - 2023 and has been co-produced with Youth Justice Partnership Board (YJPB) members and influenced by national research and evidence of effective practice and has taken examples across National Partnerships.

This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee, as agreed at the start of the meeting.

This report updates the Committee on the inspection revisit undertaken by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in December 2019, to decide whether sufficient progress has been made in addressing each of the eight significant weaknesses identified by their inspection of December 2017. They concluded that the Local Area has made sufficient progress in addressing five of the eight significant weaknesses identified at the initial inspection, detailed in the report.

Discussion:

The Director of People – Children and Adults Services introduced the report which updated the Committee on a revisit by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission to review progress made in addressing the eight areas of significant weakness which were identified in the local area SEND inspection of 2017. The outcome of the revisit judged that five out of the eight areas had been significantly improved and were cleared. For the remaining three areas, Medway was required to submit an accelerated progress plan to the Department for Education and it was expected that the final three areas would be signed off within 12 months.

Members then raised a number of questions and comments, which included:

·         Improving the quality of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) – in response to a question regarding this, officers explained they had worked hard and developed a new template and an audit tool. There were around 1500 EHCPs still to move across to the new template, which was being progressed.

·         Collaborative working with families – officers confirmed that work with families in developing EHCPs was far more collaborative, with a co-production meeting being held and a reflection meeting at the midway point of the 20 week process and at the end.  This was generating positive feedback from families.  Where decisions were made to not provide a child with an EHCP, families were supported and worked closely with using mediation as necessary, where there was disagreement with the decision.

·         High Needs Budget Deficit – following concerns raised about the £10m deficit and the impact this would have on children, officers confirmed that this had been reduced to £8.6m.  A deficit recovery plan had been submitted to the Education and Schools Funding Agency (ESFA) and a sub-group of the Schools Forum was to be set up to help manage the issue, which was a national problem and Directors of Children’s Services and the education sector continued to lobby the Government in relation to increased funding.

·         Process – the point was made that although a large proportion of EHCPs were now completed within the 20 week statutory timescales, quality was paramount and it was also recognised that there was often a long history to the process for the family, before the EHCP assessment process begins, which could be difficult and frustrating for families.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report which advised Members on the Committee’s work programme. She drew Members attention to section 5 of the report which gave details of how the role of scrutiny could be strengthened in the context of the improvement journey for children services.

She specifically drew Members’ attention to the member development training sessions, the next of which had been scheduled for 25 March 2020; the circulation of in-depth performance data and the setting up of workshops, which were likely to commence in April/May 2020; and the suggestion that the next in-depth scrutiny review be in relation to a children’s services topic, with the Director suggesting it have regard to an aspect of Early Help.

Decision:

The Committee:

1)    agreed the work programme as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, subject to accepting the proposed changes, outlined in italic text on Appendix 1.

2)    supported the new ways of working outlined in Section 5 of the report with a view to strengthening scrutiny impact particularly in performance monitoring.

3)    recommended the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee to agree that the next Scrutiny Task Group should have  focus on Children’s Social Care and that there should be an option of one Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2020/21 being a themed meeting also with a focus on children’s social care.

4)    subject to the agreement of the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee, this Committee agreed that a Task Group comprising three Conservative (Councillors Kemp, Thorne and Mrs Elizabeth Turpin) and 2 Labour and Co-operative Group members (Councillors Cooper and Johnson) should be set up to undertake an in-depth scrutiny review.

5)    subject to the agreement of the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee, this Committee agreed that the Task Group should focus on Early Help and that the Head of Democratic Services should be authorised to develop the detailed scope of the review in consultation with the Task Group members once the findings of the diagnostic exercise undertaken by Essex County Council are available, as set out in section 6.7.