Public Document Pack
Children's Scrutiny Panel
Dear Member,
You are invited to attend the meeting of the Children's Scrutiny Panel to be held as follows for the transaction of the business indicated. Miranda Carruthers-Watt Proper Officer
DATE: Wednesday, 13 November 2019
TIME: 2.00 pm
VENUE: Committee Room 4, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton
In accordance with ‘The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014,’ the press and public have the right to film, video, photograph or record this meeting.
AGENDA
1 1:30pm - Members only briefing
2 Apologies for Absence
3 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 1 - 6)
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9th October 2019.
4 Looked After Children - Zoe Fearon and Sayma Khan (Pages 7 - 14)
5 The work programme (Pages 15 - 18)
The updated work programme for consideration.
6 Any Other business
7 Date, time and business for next meeting
Wednesday 11th December 2019 at 2pm in Committee Room 4. Agenda items as outlined in the work programme: Key Stage 4 attainment (including an overview of all the key stage performance). Transition work between Years 6 and 7 School provider Arm Update The impact of Learning City
Contact Officer: Tel No: 0161 793 2811 Liz Wright E-Mail: [email protected] Agenda Item 3 CHILDREN’S SCRUTINY PANEL
Date of meeting: 9th October 2019
Meeting commenced: 2.00 p.m. Meeting ended: 4:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Councillor Brocklehurst – in the Chair
Councillors: Jim Cammell, Jillian Collinson, Laura Edwards (Vice Chair), Mike McCusker, Lewis Nelson, Mike Pevitt, Neil Reynolds, Madeline Wade, Joan Walsh,
Co-opted Members: Judith Elderkin, Jacqui Morrissey (Foster Parents Association), Seamus Martin (Parent Governor)
OFFICERS: Cathy Starbuck – Assistant Director Education Work and Skills Paula Newall – School Organisation Service Lead Chris Mee – Strategic Finance Manager Liz Wright – Democratic Services
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: None.
The meeting commenced with a minute’s silence in memory of esteemed colleagues Mr Andy Cheetham and Councillor John Ferguson. 1. INTRODUCTIONS , APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND THANK YOU Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Leitner (could not attend because the meeting fell on Yom Kippur), Dr Archer, Charlotte Ramsden. The Chair reported that it was Mr Seamus Martin’s last meeting as a member of the panel and he thanked Mr Martin for his dedicated service and much valued contribution to the work of the panel. On behalf of the committee he wished him all the best for the future.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest.
3. PUPIL PLACE PLANNING (Paula Newall) It was noted that the presentation could not be viewed at the meeting due to technical difficulties. The clerk was asked to highlight this with IT and ask them if a check was carried out before each meeting to ensure everything was working properly.
Paula Newall presented the report and invited the members to ask questions and the following points were highlighted. The report would also be shared with schools, governing boards and councillors. In terms of the forecast information, it was confirmed that the School Organisation Team had been using the same approach for a number of years and the forecasts had proved to be accurate. The city council faced a number of challenges to match the demand for pupil places due to the restrictions on local authorities building schools and because of the number of secondary schools that were academies and because academies and free schools did not come under the control of the council. The LA has been successful in particular in primary schools in meeting the extra demand for places but with the shortage in secondary school places and with the majority of secondary schools being academies, how will the expansion of places happen?
1 Page 1 Paula Newall explained that the SO team met regularly with secondary Headteachers and the academy trusts and they had all agreed to work with the LA. Information on which school estates could expand and how and had been made available. What is the LA doing about Orthodox Jewish families access to state education as it is a challenge for many to pay for their children to attend independent schools. What is the council doing to address this? There is also a large and growing Muslim community and there could be demand for a Muslim faith school. What is the LA doing about this? It was confirmed that Government policy meant that the LA could not create new schools and that the DfE had the LA’s pupil place planning data and will be met through the free school agenda. It was also confirmed that the DfE were currently not approving any applications for faith based free schools. It was reported that the Jewish independent schools were often run on a voluntary basis and that Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Academy had been expanded and Beis Yaakov High School Academy had not asked to be expanded. The Jewish community had not made any approach to the LA for state funded places. Has the LA got a responsibility to seek proposals from sponsors for free schools and if so what has the LA done in this regard? It was confirmed that the LA had not had the level of demand in terms of pupil numbers to seek a proposal for a free school and that any proposal would be made around numbers and faith (as required by the DfE) and would then see what free school proposals came forward from any sponsors. There had been a significant challenge for the LA to deal with the bulge of pupil numbers that had gone through the primary sector but this had been managed successfully. There was currently a drop in the birth rate but numbers would increase again in 2021 and there was capacity in the primary schools to cope with this. Housing developments were monitored but manty that were planned often did not come to fruition so accurate forecasts for housing development was difficult. What data does the LA use for its predictions/forecasts? It was explained that the Offices for National Statistics (ONS) data was used , live birth data, GP registrations, school admissions data, Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) data from schools and it was all reviewed on annual basis to see how accurate the forecasts had been. It was explained that the DfE also checked the accuracy of the LA’s forecasts and the last time this was done the primary forecasts had been within 1.1 of the allowed tolerance and the secondary had been within 0.4 of the allowed tolerances and this showed a good level of accuracy. Irlam and Cadishead is showing as low numbers for housing in the report and this is contrary to housing development figures, can you explain this? It was explained that the figures in the report referred to housing plans that had been approved as proposed housing could not be included in the official forecasts but it was confirmed they were taken into account informally. The actual figures were updated annually and so any housing due to come online in the area would then be included in the figures. Often children born in Warrington may live in Irlam and Cadishead. How do we take account of that type of movement across boundaries? It was confirmed that the LA took into account the cross borders figures and look at the GP registers and build those figures into the forecasts as well. Pupil planning areas and council wards do not match up. Is there anything that can be done about this? It was explained that the LA was required by the DfE to have specific planning areas that the DfE had then to approve. The planning areas were developed to take into account the population and also barriers such as rivers, motorways. Paula Newall proposed including council ward information with the future forecasts if this would help. The panel agreed that this would be helpful for future reports. Is the LA identifying the pupil numbers from new housing developments? It was confirmed that this was the case but that the numbers often took time to filter through as a new development could change the demographics of an area and it could not be assumed in what
2 Page 2 changes would happen so the LA had to wait to see the growth in numbers before confirming extra capacity was needed Paula Newall gave an update on the 12 primary planning areas that included: o Area 1 – had capacity for the next 5 years and two schools that could be expanded if needed. o Area 2 – Growth in numbers was expected and reception could be full across the area but two schools could be expanded if needed and could look across the area borders. o Area 3 – There was no significant growth forecast at the moment but there was one definite option to expand if needed. o Area 4 – No significant growth was expected and two school could be expanded if needed. o Area 5 – had the capacity to increase. o Area 6 – Schools in this area had the capacity to expand if needed. o Area 7 – There was no significant growth forecast but the schools in the area had capacity to expand. o Are 8 – There was no significant growth forecast but there was only one school that could be expanded if needed. o Area 9 – Housing was planned in this area and there was the capacity to expand three schools if needed and ion the longer term the prospect that land could be acquired if needed. o Area 10 – There was the option to expand two schools if needed. o Are 11- There was land acquired to expand one school and another school had the capacity to expand if needed. o Area 12 – There was the option to expand two schools if needed but there had been a slight decline in numbers.
New properties in Swinton do not seem to have been included in the figures? It was reported that land had been acquired that could be used to address this if the numbers materialised the figures in the report were due to be updated in December 2019 and Paula Newall would raise the members concerns about this. Is there provision for the expansion for the Jewish community? Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Academy was not yet full following it being expanded and so there were currently surplus places. There were also two community schools in the Paula Newall gave an update on the 12 primary planning areas that included: Paula Newall gave an update on the three secondary planning areas that included: o The bulge of pupil numbers moving through from the primary sector into the secondary sector was a significant challenge. o All three planning areas were under pressure for places. o Three secondary schools had had there Year 7 numbers increased (Harrop Fold School; Salford City Academy; All Hallows RC High School). o Area 101 (Little Hulton, Walkden and Swinton) – an area of high demand in based on pupil projections and parental choice. All the schools in the area had the capacity to increase their intakes if needed. o Area 102 (Eccles/Irlam) – The projected numbers meant a bulge class could be needed. The schools in the area had the capacity to increase with two schools being able to use former 6th form sites. o Area 103 (Salford) – was the only area where there was no pressure on numbers. The LA SO team met on a regular basis with colleagues from across Greater Manchester (GM) and all areas of GM were seeing a growth in numbers. In the near future as pressure on the places across GM grows there may not be as many places for pupils from Salford to go to schools across borders into other GM LAs. LAs could not expand schools that were under performing. There had been an increase in school admissions appeals for places in the secondary sector and if an appeal was successful some schools could be required to go above their Pupil Admission Number (PAN). What about the proposed free school (secondary) in Salford?
3 Page 3 There is pressure on places in the Little Hulton/Walkden area and a school is needed to be able to ensure that children can go to school in their local area. A decision on where such a school should be sited in Salford is imminent. If schools in this area can expand as stated earlier, why do we need a new school in that area as well? It was conformed that the expansion would be for a year group as the numbers from primary moved through the schools another school would be needed. Why do a number of parents choose to send their children to schools outside of Salford? Should the focus not be on improving Salford schools so more parents wish to send their children there? It was confirmed that the focus was on improving schools but it remained a challenge for schools to persuade some parents that they can get a good level of education in the secondary sector. It was an ongoing challenge to meet the expectations of parents in terms of them expressing their parental preference. It was proposed and agreed that it would be useful on the primary and secondary offer day that the actual capacity of the schools was highlighted to parents to help them make sense of the offers and also to help inform their choices if their child had not got a place in the school they preferred. RESOLVED: THAT 1. council ward information would be included with the future forecasts for the panel; 2. members concerns about the planning for potential pupil numbers from new housing in Swinton would be considered when the updated figures were reviewed in December; 3. on primary and secondary offer day that the actual capacity of the schools was highlighted to parents.
4. SERVICE GROUP BUDGETS - REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING 2019/20, CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2019/20 Chris Mee presented the report and invited the members to ask questions about the report and the following points were highlighted. Table A paragraph 2.3 showed the differentiated council and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) pooled budget and highlighted the budget pressure. The pressure lay in the Looked After Children (LAC) element, relating to the spend on placements outside of Salford and a smaller element was around the cover for social workers. The number of LACs had increased from 520 to 580 and the number of special guardianships had increased. The pressure on foster care and adoption allowances would decline over the next couple of years. This was because of the focus on increasing independent foster care/Salford foster care with a view to reducing placements outside of Salford. The expansion of care home places within the city would had and would continue to help with this. Interventions were in place to address deficits. No Wrong Door was funded through monies from GM and the CCG. The issues around special educational needs and disability (SEND) access and inclusion was mainly about transport. Table B on page 32 was highlighted and it was explained that the main pressure was the rising number of SEND on the High Needs Block. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget was forecast to go further into deficit and the LA had had to submit a recovery plan to the DfE in June but and had not heard back from the DfE as yet. The capital budget was broadly in line with expectations. Staff turnover/agency cover/specialist provision costs, what are our mitigation plans? It was planned to bring down the costs and No Wrong Door policy aimed to reduce the costs of LAC and decrease the reliance on outside placements. Foster care payments had been increased and there was a focus on recruitment and retention of foster carers in Salford, which would also help to reduce costs in the longer term. Is there a GM plan/scheme for SEND?
4 Page 4 There was a GM approach being developed. Salford had had a successful application for a special free school (for Autistic Spectrum Disorder [ASD]), which was currently going through the procurement process with a view to it opening in two years. This would also help reduce costs as it would provide more SEND places in Salford. LAs across the country were reporting pressure on their High Needs Block funding. The members requested to see the High Needs Block Recovery Plan. A detailed review of SEND provision was currently being carried out. The ASD free school was welcomed. Is Salford a net beneficiary or contributor to any pooled arrangements budget arrangements? All GM funding into Salford was new money from the DfE (e.g. for No Wrong Door) and the impact of the funding would be reviewed at a GM level and reported back to the DfE. GMCA (GM Combined Authority) monies were delegated to a local level and a cost/benefit analysis would be carried out. Are we expecting £2.5 million extra funding for schools from the DfE? This was a reported as a guesstimate at the moment, 50% based on historic funding and a growth assumption added to this. The LA should receive final details of the amount from the DfE in December. The next service update report would be presented to the panel towards the end of the year. The members thanked Chris Mee for the report and thanked officers for the innovative work that was happening to address the needs of the children that officers were doing so in a way that addressed the budgetary challenges and pressures. *Councillor Pevitt left the meeting at this point.
RESOLVED: THAT the panel noted the report and: reviewed the current position and forecast year-end position for the service group’s revenue budget, Dedicated Schools Grant budget and Children’s element of the Integrated Fund; reviewed the progress made towards achieving the agreed cost reductions; reviewed the current position regarding the service group’s 2019/20 capital programme; requested that a copy of the High Needs Block Recovery Plan be circulated to the members of the panel.
5. THE WORK PROGRAMME It was agreed to amend the item Managed Move Process in Salford for the February meeting to In Year FaIr Access Process/Managed Move Process and feedback from schools. It was agreed to amend the topic for the March meeting to Fostering – the impact of pay and comparison across GM. The deletions from the recommendations tracker were agreed.
RESOLVED: THAT the topics for the February and March meetings be amended as outlined above.
6. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2019
RESOLVED: THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2019 were approved as a true and correct record.
7. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2019 There were no matters arising.
8. DATE AND TIME OF THE NEXT MEETING The next meeting would be held on Wednesday 13th November 2019 at 2pm in Committee Room 4.
5 Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4
Page 7 Reviewing Practice
Governance
Model Development Page 8 Page KEY: Recruitment Young People/Carers Participation ‘Authentic ’ Induction and Training
Engaging Partners/Comms
Innovation Unit - Coaching Page 9 Would this be good enough for my child?
Are we managing risk for the organisation or risk to the young person?
Page 10 Page Why can’t we, what’s the best that could happen?
Is there a shared approach to supporting/caring across partner agencies
What kind of adult do they want to be: in 5 years, 25/35/50
Are we going the extra mile to help young people achieve their ambitions? Page 11 Page 12 NOT a new project! New way of working
Culture change across workforce
Page 13 Page Perceptions ‘ just another children's home’
Managing risk differently
Fostering This page is intentionally left blank Children’s Scrutiny Panel Work Programme and Recommendations 2019-20
SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE DATES & AGENDA ITEMS
Date Topic/Action Responsible officer (s)
11th Sept 2019 Support offer to Young Carers Head of Service
9th Oct 2019 Pupil Place Planning Cathy Starbuck Service Groups Budgets Chris Mee/Dave Cope
13th Nov 2019 Looked After Children (LAC) Zoe Fearon Reasons why children go into care
Page 15 Page Causes of family breakdown Update re. No Wrong Door Extra-curricular activities available
11th Dec 2019 Key Stage 4 attainment and including an overview of all the key Cathy Starbuck stage performance Transition work between years 6 and 7 School Provider Arm Update
Impact of Learning City Update Debbie Blackburn Agenda Item 5
12 February 2020 Managed Move Process in Salford – Update on the IYFA Cathy Starbuck Process/Managed Move Process including feedback from schools (including Pupil Voice and HT feedback via the HT Forum meetings)
11 March 2020 Recruitment and retention of Foster Carers – Recruitment and Zoe Fearon Retention of Foster Carers (including the impact of the changes to payments and comparisons across Greater Manchester).
Regular monitoring reports
Service Group Budgets (Chris Mee/Dave Cope) focus on agency costs Service Group priorities (annually) School Performance Data (annually - Cathy Starbuck)
Topics in abeyance
Children’s Dental Health A Learning City Development of GM agenda and how this affects the CSD
Reviews Accessing Children’s and Young People’s Mental Health Services Councillor Edwards
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER Page 16 Page Title of Report Date of submissions and responses Responsible Lead Member/officer
Fostering in Salford Report submitted to Executive Lead member for Children’s Charlotte Ramsden/Zoe Fearon/Helen Services, Learning and Skills Oct 2015 Progress reviewed Romaniszyn January 2016 and Regular recruitment updates received (April 17) The next update is scheduled for the meeting on 11.03.20
Portfolio of the Board: Membership – 12 Members (10 Lab 2 Con) Children in Need Cllr A Brocklehurst (Chair) Integrated Looked after Children Cllr L Edwards (Vice Chair) Early Intervention Cllr J Cammell Cllr J Collinson Children’s Safeguarding Cllr A Leitner Integrated Youth Support including Youth Offender Cllr M McCusker Service Cllr E Nelson Complex Needs Inclusion Cllr M Pevitt Complex Needs SEN Cllr N Reynolds School Provider Arm Cllr M Wade Cllr Joan Walsh Starting Life Well Cllr R Wilson 2 Transforming Learning Skills and Work Co-opted Members – Primary School Place Planning programmes Dr Keith Archer Partnerships and Commissioning (including the Ms Jacqui Morrissey Mrs Judith Elderkin Children and Young People’s Trust) Mr Seamus Martin (office ends 05.09.19) To scrutinise the council’s business plan and Four vacancies (free churches rep, Jewish Rep, RC Rep; 1 parent gov) budget in this functional area. Lead member: Councillor John Merry (Exec Support Cllr John Walsh) Key Officers: Charlotte Ramsden, Cathy Starbuck, Zoe Fearon, Deborah Blackburn, Beck Bibby) Page 17 Page
3 This page is intentionally left blank