Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Date: Thursday 10 March 2011
Time: 2:00pm
Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall, Norwich
Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.
Membership
Miss C Casimir (Chairman)
Mr R Bearman Ms D Irving Dr A Boswell Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr B Bremner Mr W Nunn Mr M Brindle Mr M Scutter Mrs J Chamberlin (Vice-Chairman) Mr B Spratt Mr G Cook Miss J Virgo Mrs S Gurney Mr P Wells Mrs S Hutson Mr A Wright
Parent Governor Representatives
Mr P East Dr L Poliakoff
Church Representatives
Mrs J O’Connor Mr A Mash
Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative
Dr B Carrington
Non-Voting Cabinet Member
Mrs A Thomas
Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Member
Mr T Garrod Vulnerable Children Mrs J Murphy Education Non-Voting Co-opted Advisors
Mr S Adamson Norfolk Governors Network Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr P Large Secondary Education Mr L Poulson Post-16 Education Mrs H Rowlinson Special Schools
For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Kristen Jones on 01603 223053 or email [email protected]
For Public Questions and Local Member Questions please contact: Committees Team on [email protected] or telephone 01603 223053. A g e n d a
1. To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending
2. Minutes (Page 1)
To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel held on 13 January 2011.
3. Members to Declare any Interests
Please indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one which is prejudicial. A declaration of a personal interest should indicate the nature of the interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case of a personal interest, the member may speak and vote on the matter. Please note that if you are exempt from declaring a personal interest because it arises solely from your position on a body to which you were nominated by the County Council or a body exercising functions of a public nature (e.g. another local authority), you need only declare your interest if and when you intend to speak on a matter.
If a prejudicial interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed unless members of the public are allowed to make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter, in which case you may attend the meeting for that purpose. You must immediately leave the room when you have finished or the meeting decides you have finished, if earlier.
These declarations apply to all those members present, whether the member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.
4. To receive any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency
5. Public Question Time
Fifteen minutes for questions from members of the public of which due notice has been given.
Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Team ([email protected] or 01603 223053) by 5pm on Monday 7 March 2011. For guidance on submitting public questions, please view the Council Constitution, Appendix 10. 6. Local Member Issues/Member Questions
Fifteen minutes for local members to raise issues of concern of which due notice has been given.
Please note that all questions must be received by the Committee Team ([email protected] or 01603 223053) by 5pm on Monday 7 March 2011.
7. Cabinet Member Feedback
Scrutiny Items
8. Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny (Page 25)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services.
9. Levels of Attendance in Schools (Page 32)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services.
10. Review & Retention of Head Teachers (Page 59)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services.
Overview Items
11. Service and Financial Planning 2011-14 (Page 73)
To set out the financial and service planning position for Children’s Services for 2011-14, including a summary of the results of the Big Conversation consultation.
12. Children’s Services Integrated Performance & Finance Monitoring (Page 83) Draft Report for 2010-2011
Report by the Director of Children’s Services.
13. Admissions Arrangements for September 2012 (Page 96)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services.
14. Review of Former School Sites (Page 101)
Report by the Director of Children’s Services.
Group Meetings
Conservative 1:00 pm Colman Room Liberal Democrats 1:00 pm Room 504
Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH
Date Agenda Published: 2 March 2011
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best
to help.
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel Minutes of the Meeting Held on Thursday 13 January 2011
Present:
Miss C Casimir (Chairman)
Mr T Adams Mrs S Gurney Mr R Bearman Mrs S Hutson Dr A Boswell Mr M Kiddle-Morris Mr B Bremner Mr M Scutter Mr M Brindle Mr B Spratt Mrs J Chamberlin Mr P Wells Baron M Chenery of Horsbrugh Mr A Wright
Parent Governor Representative:
Dr L Poliakoff
Non-Voting School’s Forum Representative:
Dr B Carrington
Non-Voting Cabinet Member:
Mrs A Thomas
Non-Voting Deputy Cabinet Members:
Mr T Garrod Vulnerable Children Mrs J Murphy Education
Non-Voting Co-Opted Advisors:
Mr S Adamson Norfolk Governors’ Network Mrs S Cooke Primary Education Mr P Large Secondary Education Mr L Poulson Post-16 Education
Chairman’s Announcements
The Vice-Chairman announced that due to illness Mr Cook was unable to attend and chair the meeting. On behalf of the Panel the Vice-Chairman wished Mr Cook a speedy recovery.
1. Apologies and substitutions
1.1 Apologies were received from Mr Cook, Mr Nunn (Baron Chenery of Horsbrugh substituting), Ms Irving (Mr Adams substituting), Mr P East, Mrs O’Connor, Mr Mash and Mrs Rowlinson.
2. Minutes
2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2010 were agreed by the Panel and signed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to clarification at bullet point 5 as to “The variation of £ -0.708 million relating to provision for Modern Reward Strategy…”
3. Declarations of Interests
3.1 The following personal interests were declared:
3.2 Mrs Gurney declared a personal interest in Item 8 as her two sons, aged 15 and 19 were students at Hellesdon High School and she paid for their school music lessons.
3.3 Mrs Thomas declared a personal interest in Item 8 as her daughter received school music lessons.
3.4 Mr Bremner declared a personal interest in Item 8 as his son received school music lessons and attended the school’s music service.
4. Items of Urgent Business
4.1 The Vice-Chairman advised that she had accepted a matter of Urgent Business relating to the Panel Chairman, Gerry Cook. He had written to the Head of Democratic Services to inform him that he would stand down from his role as Chairman with immediate effect but would continue as a Panel member.
4.2 The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services commented that she had had a long conversation with Mr Cook’s wife who confirmed that he was very unwell and saddened that he would be unable to continue as Panel Chairman, given his ill health. Mr Cook wanted his thanks passed on to all those who had sent messages of support and he wished whoever took over from him as Chairman his best wishes. The Cabinet Member in return asked the Panel to join with her in sending all good wishes for a speedy recovery.
4.3 The Vice-Chairman, Charlotte Casimir stood down from her position on the Panel and the Democratic Services Manager called for nominations for the election of Chairman of the Panel.
4.4 Election of Chairman Mr Wells proposed, and Mr Wright seconded, the election of Charlotte Casimir as Chairman of the Panel and in being put to the vote it was:
4.5 RESOLVED that Charlotte Casimir be elected Chairman of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel for the remainder of this Council year.
4.6 Election of Vice-Chairman The Chairman invited nominations for Vice-Chairman and Mrs Gurney proposed, seconded by Mrs Hutson, that Mrs Jenny Chamberlin fill this vacancy. In being put to the vote it was:
4.7 RESOLVED that Jenny Chamberlin be elected Vice-Chairman of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel for the remainder of this Council year.
5. Public Question Time
5.1 The Chairman advised the Panel that two public questions had been received after the formal deadline for such questions to the Panel. She confirmed that written replies would nevertheless be sent to the two questioners as a matter of urgency; their questions having been in relation service provision and budget planning issues arising from the Big Conversation.
5.2 Appendix A to these minutes sets out the questions and replies to public questions.
6. Local Member Issues/Member Questions
6.1 There were no Local Member questions raised.
7. Cabinet Member Feedback
7.1 The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services stated that there were no matters to feedback on this occasion. She would, however, listen to the views of the public, local members and Panel members relating to the Big Conversation and looked forward to a constructive meeting.
Overview Items
8. Service and Financial Planning 2011-2014
8.1 The Panel received a report (Agenda Item 8) by the Director of Children’s Services. The report set out the financial planning context for Children’s Services for the next three years. It also summarised the feedback received from the specific budget proposals outlined in the Big Conversation which for Children’s Services centred on proposals for:
Ending the subsidy for school and college transport for those age 16 and over Ending the subsidy for denominational transport Re-designing and re-shaping the special educational needs services Ceasing County Council funding for youth services Reducing the scale and capacity of services that provide support for Looked After Children and School Improvement
8.2 Finally, the report outlined the priorities for the use of the school’s capital grant allocation for 2011/12.
8.3 School responses focussed on the reduced level of support of teaching and for all aspects of school activity.
8.4 An update of responses received from 1 to 10 January 2011 was tabled (see Appendix B of these minutes).
8.3 The Cabinet Member gave an overview on the proposals and reiterated that her role was not in answering all queries raised but in listening to the comments made and taking them forward.
8.5 The Director of Children’s Services set the financial context for the proposals and reminded members of the need for the Council to set a legal budget within the limited funding available, subject to consideration by Cabinet, on 14 February at full Council. This process supported that aim but she asserted that the proposals were challenging but they met the Council duty to provide services within the budget available.
8.6 During the discussion, the following points were raised:
In relation to the Council’s strategic ambitions it was noted that aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills were a very important issue for Norfolk. The proposed loss of subsidy for Post 16 school transport was clearly contrary to this ambition and the proposal was of such considerable concern that it had received the second highest number of consultation responses and a petition, supported by some 1,700 people who opposed the removal of this subsidy. The withdrawal would run the risk of an increased number of NEETS and an increase in youth unemployment. Young people would also be unable to take up apprenticeships. Within the Downham Market area many young people from sixth form college went onto join the Queen Elisabeth Hospital as nurses but the removal of the subsidy would be a problem for these young people in choosing their career path. Adoption of this proposal would have a serious effect on colleges, potentially limiting the number of courses available and leading to the unemployment of college staff. The proposed loss of subsidy for Post 16 school transport had come forward last year and had been resisted because of an inconsistency and conflict with the Every Child Matters strategy. Members now urged that this matter be referred back to Children’s Services and the Cabinet to find a way around this proposal. The Cabinet Member responded by stating that meetings had been held with college principals and everyone involved was taking a proactive stance on what could be done to find a solution. She did not want to pre-empt matters at this time but stated she was encouraged that positive steps were being taken to move this matter forward.
Comment was made that Post 16 Transport was essential for both rural and urban areas across Norfolk. The loss of this subsidy in one divisional area would potentially see the three coach companies fail, all firms which made a living taking children to school, equally rural bus companies would be adversely affected by this proposal. In urban areas there were a large proportion of young people with low aspirations and the withdrawal of this subsidy would be hard felt. The Council had invested in the creation of academies and to remove the transport subsidy now would be counterintuitive and would entrench deprivation in communities.
Home to School Transport proposals (para 6.15) were again questioned and it was noted that some colleges were more disadvantaged than others, such as Easton College and the question was asked – what was being done to help colleges such as this. In addition, query was raised as to what would happen if a positive solution was not forthcoming, was there a Plan B. In reply, the Director confirmed that there were real issues for Easton and City Colleges, and colleges in the east, from the potential loss of subsidy. She was very alert to the impacts but pleased that colleges were engaging in dialogue. She noted that this was the third time this matter had come before members, equally she was aware of the EMA changes and confirmed that this was an important issue which needed to be resolved – positive collaboration was needed. She confirmed that it was not a case of having a Plan A or Plan B – there simply had to be a plan that enabled a legal budget to be set in February.
Concern was raised as to the proposal to remove subsidised transport in exceptional circumstances (para 6.20 of the report). The suggestion was made that the criteria should be reviewed and the policy changed but not removed, irrespective of the decision on post 16 Transport. In reply, it was confirmed that this was a proposal which needed to be considered alongside all others.
In addition, the Chairman of the Schools Forum added her concern at the removal of subsidised transport in exceptional circumstances, adding that families found themselves in need of support through no choice or making of their own.
Representations from the Post 16 Education Advisor highlighted the real difficulties for young people should the transport subsidy be withdraw. Equally, the loss of the Education Maintenance Allowance, which helped families budgets’, was feared for. Members were informed that the poorest of students, who were supported to continue their education, consistently outperformed other students in exam successes and in achieving university placements. Concern was expressed for all colleges but especially those with the largest catchment areas, where students travelled long distances. Members were urged to support the continued subsidy for post 16 transport and see it as an investment in the county’s future and not a burden on costs which could be dismissed.
It was noted that college principals and others were concerned that the Education Maintenance Allowance had been removed by Government. At a time when Norfolk MPs, councillors and others were speaking up so strongly for Marham and the impact on the economy which would be felt if this airbase was closed, was it not right to stand up for Norfolk’s young and elderly people and lobby the Government, along with the Eastern Daily Press, to stop the £155 million of cuts facing Norfolk and to change its mind on the Education Maintenance Allowance and its impact on 16- 19 year olds.
The proposed redesign of services was raised and it was noted that the Music Service had to pay £900 per month to store instruments. Suggestion was made that this be reviewed so that no levy was charged to the Music Service.
There was support for the work of the music service because it was not just developing a commitment to music but supported young people in group work. Query was raised as to how the costs for this service would be met and would there be increased costs for parents. In reply, the Director accepted the benefits for children and that they were often wider than simple music tuition. She confirmed that the funding issues were complicated at present as the government had not yet advised on the amount of grant funding for this service. She hoped things would be clearer soon.
Further concerns were expressed for the retention of music provision outside schools and it was suggested that, if the grant was insufficient, local sponsorship might be a way forward as a lot of brass bands in Norfolk were sponsored.
It was noted that an online petition relating to the Music Service was gaining momentum with 863 votes to date, and would be submitted to the Council prior to full Council, calling for Norfolk to fund the music service.
Panel Members thanked the public and their constituents for engaging so wholeheartedly in the Big Conversation; attending public meetings, sending emails, letters and calling councillors direct to put their views forward for dealing with the problems the Council faced.
Members were assured that staff involvement had resulted in much good feedback to the Big Conversation.
Support for the Big Conversation process was welcomed and seen as very good practice on how to engage with the public, particularly when compared to neighbouring county areas.
It was noted that as many as 5000 responses had come in after 31 December and the reason suggested for this was that the public had not been made aware of the proposals. It was suggested that instead of specific details which people could understand there had been waffly statements. In response, comment was made that in other parts of the country the general public had simply been told of the cuts which would fall on services and had not been consulted, as in Norfolk. One member intending holding a public meeting on 14 January and would be submitting feedback into the Big Conversation, knowing that views were still filtering in and every opportunity was being made to let the people of Norfolk have their say.
The advantages of outsourcing services and joint commissioning arrangements was questioned at paras 6.8 and 6.9 of the report. In reply, the Director confirmed that there was a need to obtain best value for money on all its services. Opportunities existed with partners from the statutory, voluntary and independent sectors and now through social enterprise partnerships. It is essential the Council ensures that it is getting best value for money.
Query was raised as to how changes to Special Educational Needs support (Para 6.24 of the report) would work with the uncoupling of resources from the statementing process. In reply, the Director confirmed that this proposal did not reduce funding for paying for children’s statements; rather it was about continuing the strategy for this work. The reductions proposed would come from administrative staffing reductions.
Concerns as to statementing changes identified that there needed to be a level of consistency across the county in approach if there was devolution of responsibility to individual schools. In reply, the Director explained that there would be no change to the criteria for statementing which are defined in statute. The County Council would still manage the assessment service.
Query was raised in relation to para 6.21 of the report and reference to fewer statements of need being required. In reply, the Director explained that the special educational needs strategy, agreed some three years ago, set out the aim to move away from a reliance on statements and be more child focussed. The intention of the service redesign would be to intervene earlier, do more and provide a better service.
Concern was raised as to the abolition of the Youth Service and the vague hope that others would step in and cover this work. Question was raised as to whether there would be a framework service established which might ensure the right support flowed to the areas which needed it. Comment was also made as to the preventative value of the Youth Service and the impact if this service were withdrawn for young people moving through the age groups, problems of obesity and the long term costs implications. The Director responded to confirm that equality impact assessments would be presented to Cabinet on 24 January on this and all other proposals; publicly available and despatched with the Cabinet budget papers.
Further comments on the Youth Service proposals were raised, especially for early intervention and the cost implications if this service was removed. It was suggested that better links to schools through the redesigning of services could help.
Query was raised as to the Youth and Community Support Services proposal (para 6.35 of the report) to restructure Divisional Teams without the youth staffing component and the impact if grant funding was not forthcoming to ensure statutory requirements were met, as stated in the report. It was noted that there would undoubtedly be an impact from the implementation of this proposal and the Cabinet Member confirmed that there were no easy decisions to be made. The Director reaffirmed that statutory requirements would be met.
It was requested that efforts be made to support the actions of the West Norwich Partnership which had proactively secured lottery funding and considerable charitable support to continue its operations. Reassurance was sought that Council funding remain in place until the point that the secured funding stream commenced. In reply, the Director noted that this was a prime example of what the voluntary sector did best and their leverage in obtaining funds was excellent. Communities needed to consider what they could do to support their youth.
The suggestion was made that sharing of services with District Councils, particularly with regard to youth work, was the way forward. In reply, the Director confirmed that youth services were embedded in the work of District Councils, who were keen to help deliver services in future. In addition, the discussion of this and other such aspects of service provision would be via the Local Strategic Partnerships.
It was noted that sponsorship and funding for youth work could be forthcoming and the example was given of financial support for youth workers provided by the Methodist Church in the Downham Market Division. A new approach was needed to support this service and get funding in place for West Norfolk.
The Looked After Children procurement savings were raised as an issue (para 6.38 and 6.39 of the report), and specifically what the intended improvements arising from this proposal were and would they save money. The Director confirmed that more corporate support would be provided for procurement. She was pleased to advise members that not a single child had been placed out of county in the past 8 weeks. This had reduced spend and showed that the strategy for Looked After Children appeared to be working, but she remained cautious in reporting early success.
Proposals for changes to Corporate Parenting were raised as an area of concern and the Director explained the changes proposed were to staffing not commissioning practices.
It was confirmed that practical suggestions coming though in the Big Conversation were being picked up and already in certain areas, discussions were ongoing.
Changes to Family Support proposals (para 6.47 of the report) were queried and members were advised that savings would arise from the integration of workers into new operational arrangements, resulting in combined and more efficient service provision. The intention was to provide similar levels of service as currently with, for example the Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Partnership combining with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services to be more efficient.
There was support for the proposal to create a newly designed Education Achievement and Improvement Service (paras 6.25 and 6.26 of the report). Example was given of the Bowthorpe Division where attendance was a cause for concern in its local schools and the suggestion was made that the newly redesigned Attendance Service should focus on school by school performance rather than work to arbitrary OFSTED targets. In reply, the Director confirmed that streamlined business processes were essential to support this redesign, coupled with a reduction in management arrangements. She confirmed that with fewer resources the redesigned attendance service would be more targeted with schools where there would be best impact. She also reminded members that it was the fundamental duty of parents to ensure children went to school. Less money for services meant a different way of working.
Information was sought on how the management structure for this Service would be managed and in particular in the light of the Surrey County Council meltdown following cuts to its services. The Director confirmed that proposals B14-19 of the report related to costs from management and support and these were large, challenging figures. She reminded members that her service had just been redesigned and now further redesign was needed. The proposals, if taken forward, would mean reductions at every level from the management team down.
Support was expressed for maintaining school crossing patrols, with comments that a large number of schools had expressed views on this proposal. It was recognised that this was not a statutory responsibility but it was important to retain a level of service wherever possible. The Director confirmed that there had been a lot of feedback on this issue but she noted that the proposal was based on the need for some application criteria.
Concern was expressed that Unthank Centre staff had been told the Centre would be closing. This was a special place which supported the most vulnerable of children and its work could not be picked up by the voluntary sector. In reply, the Cabinet Member confirmed that staff would rightly have been advised by managers of the proposals so they did not read about them in the press first and such briefings were ongoing to ensure staff were fully informed. However, no such decisions had yet been taken. The proposal would see the closure of the building but not of the service which would be retained.
The Panel representative for primary education expressed views that the biggest concern was the cumulative effect of the proposals both from local and national initiatives and she particularly raised concern that early intervention would not be as effective as it currently was. She invited further consideration of the proposals at a slower pace. In reply, the Director accepted the comments but noted too the heartening stance being taken by many people who had contributed to the debate and made the connections between proposals as a whole. Paras 6.2 to 6.11 of the report set the rationale for the reorganised Children’s Service. She added that education and parents were the most important influences on children and the County Council must prioritise achieving the Council’s ambitions for well supported and well educated children and young people by working to support parents, early years, schools and colleges.
It was suggested that changes to support for the Duke of Edinburgh awards could bring sponsorship from unexpected sources as money would always flow to initiatives which had Royal patronage.
Query was raised at the approach which would be taken to the delivery of Pupil Referral Units and an assurance was sought that a community hub project currently running in Bowthorpe, be allowed to complete its work. In reply, the Director explained that assurance could not be given at this stage; the matter was subject to consideration at a later stage on the Panel agenda.
Query was raised as to what the process would be if any of the major proposals were thrown out. In reply, the Director explained that there would be no further consultation before Cabinet considered the proposals and recommended to Council a budget. Members would be acting on what people had said was important to them. There could be shifts and changes between now and then and it was a complex process but the final determinant was the need to deliver a legal budget.
Several members expressed concern to find an alternative solution for Chapel Road School (para 7.8 of the report) and to identify a timescale for its replacement. In reply, the Cabinet Member confirmed that the Capital Priorities Group would review this capital project.
8.7 RESOLVED:
The Panel confirmed that it had considered and commented on:
i) the proposed core role and strategy for the County Council, as set out in Section 5 of the Panel report and ii) Specific revenue budget proposals and the capital programme for Children’s Services, as set out in Section 6 and 7 of the Panel report.
9. Fair Funding: Consultation Outcome
9.1 The Panel received a report (Agenda Item 9) by the Director of Children’s Services which set out the outcome of the recent Fair Funding consultation with schools on changes to school funding from April 2011. The report showed details of all the proposals contained within the consultation document; the views of schools on each proposal, the views of the Schools Forum and the subsequent recommendations for change.
9.2 During the discussion, the following points were raised:
Query was raised about the effect on travel times for pupils attending the proposed short stay schools which saw changes from the current provision of five Pupil Referral Units to a single short stay school model of three satellite Short Stay School sites. The Director confirmed that she would write to the member concerned (copying in all Panel members) regarding the implications arising from these changes.
In addition, it was commented that this proposal would make it even more difficult for pupils to attend school. Was this a sensible approach and should this be rethought taking into account the impact on young people when in operation. In reply, the Director noted the concerns raised but noted that the proposal should be reviewed in the context of the whole approach to Delivering Norfolk’s Behaviour and Attendance Strategy.
Also on the issue of Pupil Referral Units, query was raised regarding Thetford’s unit specifically and whether it would be lost under the new proposals. Comment was also made that the Executive Head of Short Stay Schools would have a large span of control across the three satellite schools and was this manageable. In reply, the Director confirmed that Thetford would be one of the satellite locations and would run a service for children who were excluded. The Executive Head of Short Stay Schools would need to work across the bases and manage the service, rather than be buildings focussed, in a more efficient way. This would be a challenge and would require fresh thinking but was the way forward. However, the Director reassured the Panel on the proposals overall for short stay schools and that discussions were ongoing as the report stated.
Query was raised with regard to Small Schools and the establishment of a Working Group to consider all the relevant issues related to small and undersized schools. The Director confirmed that the Working Group would comprise both member and Schools Forum representation and noted that one of its terms of reference would be to consider the financial viability issue.
The proposal to set up a Working Group was welcomed as it could ensure that money was put to good use in supporting school improvement.
9.3 Finally, the Panel noted the following corrections to the Panel report as follows: Page 26 - second line of the Recommendation change “35” to “48”. Page 31 – first line of Schools Forum View change “64” to “65”. Page 31 – Recommendation third line change “64” to “65”. Page 33 – top line change “62” to “67”.
9.4 RESOLVED:
The Panel confirmed for recommendation to Cabinet:
1. proposed changes to school funding arrangements; a proposal to set up a Working Group to consider issues related to small and undersized schools 2. a proposal to move to a single Short Stay School 3. proposals to mainstream grants from April 2011.
10. Schools Budget 2011/12
10.1 The Panel received a report (Agenda Item 10) by the Director of Children’s Services which set out details of the Dedicated Schools Grant for 2011/12; the Schools Budget for 2011/12; budget planning guidance for schools for 2012/12 and 2013/14, and the pupil premium for 2011/12.
10.2 The Assistant Director, Business and Compliance, Children's Services advised the Panel of the outcome of discussions with the Schools Forum, held on 6 January, in considering the school funding adjustments, including the funding settlement and the proposal to balance the budget. He noted that the Schools Forum had supported the approach being taken. He also confirmed that the meeting with the Schools Forum had discussed details of the Planning Guidelines 2012/13 and 2013/14 and advised that the Forum had agreed the approach being proposed. The budget planning guidelines will be minus 2% in 2012/13 and a further minus 2% in 2013/14.
10.3 During the discussion, the following points were raised:
The reference in the Panel report to an indicator to reflect that deprivation in 2011-2012 would be known eligibility for Free School Meals was raised and confirmation sought that support would be available to schools to claim for free school meals. The Director confirmed that advice would be issued to schools on the importance of ensuring pupil data was as accurate as possible to maximise the Pupil Premium. Also, with regard to Pupil Premiums, advice was sought on whether the Council was losing out or gaining in terms of the funding to support deprived children. In reply, it was confirmed that Norfolk would not see a reduction in funding. This was a specific and separate grant paid over and above the funding by central government. Query was raised over the status of the Schools Forum and whether it was in receipt of funding. In reply, it was explained that this was a statutory body which included representation by schools, school governors, head teachers and non-schools who all came together as a body with a specific interest in schools funding. This Forum was responsible for considering the distribution of funding by reference to a complex formula, but was not in itself in receipt of funding. Some concern was raised at the impact of the formula funding proposals on schools this year, and particular reference was made to Taverham High School which would see a real terms deficit of £155,000 to £160,000 due to the funding formula proposals and the impact of reductions from other grants this year. In reply, the Director noted the comments and could add nothing further than to recognise the difficult choices and decisions being faced across all of the Council’s services this year.
10.4 RESOLVED:
The Panel confirmed that it had considered and commented on the proposed 2011/12 Schools Budget and the proposed guidelines for school budget construction in 2012/13 and 2013/14.
11. Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring Report 2010-11
11.1 The Panel received a report (Agenda Item 11) by the Director of Children’s Services which provided an update on performance and finance monitoring information for the 2010-2011 financial years. The report monitored progress against the Corporate Objectives set out in the County Council Plan.
11.2 During the discussion, the following points were raised:
Disappointment was expressed that the last annual assessment from Ofsted had judged Children’s Services in Norfolk adequate overall and the comment was made that “adequate” did not fairly reflect the Council’s performance. In reply, the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services highlighted Ofsted’s statement recognising “a large majority of all types of services, settings and institutions inspected by Ofsted good or better”. Query was raised as to the impact on school performance from the proposed changes to services and funding and the potential for more schools to be placed in special measures. In reply, the Director agreed that Children’s Services would have to work differently. There was a lot of work underway to maximise the benefits and impacts of the changes planned for schools and to help them to improve performance. Work with school governors was key and she would be keeping a close watch on what was happening in the months ahead.
11.3 RESOLVED:
To note the information contained in the report.
Scrutiny Items
12. Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny
12.1 The annexed report (12) by the Director of Children’s Services was received. The report asked Members to review and develop the programme for scrutiny.
12.2 RESOLVED:
To approve the scrutiny topics listed and their reporting dates. No further topics were added to the Forward Work Programme.
The meeting concluded at 5.17 pm
CHAIRMAN If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone)
and we will do our best to help. Appendix A PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Public Question – from Pauline Davies
What will the impact be of the proposed funding cuts to the delivery of children and young peoples mental health services in Norfolk?
Reply
Thank you for your question.
It is worth emphasising that the remaining budget after the proposed reductions will represent approximately 10% of the Norfolk system’s total spend on CAMHS. The other 90% of funding is held by the NHS.
The proposed re-structuring of the NCC provided Family Solutions Teams to reflect the new Children’s Services divisional model, will not reduce the capacity the service is able to offer to clients.
In addition to the proposed reduction of the back-office functions and staff team that support the work of the CAMHS Joint Commissioning Group (JCG) and CAMHS Strategic Partnership, savings will also be delivered by not re-investing funding made available by previous de-commissioning decisions and by stopping the implementation of other commissioning intentions that have not yet been committed to contracts.
From October 2012 a smaller number of new CAMHS contracts will be in place. The aim of the re-tendering exercise is to procure as effective and efficient CAMHS provision as possible, with the possibilities of aligning and pooling of budgets to be explored.
Public Question – from Natasha Rennolds
Given the cumulative effect of the proposals on the 11-19 age group, how do NCC propose to monitor the actual impact of any cuts made and how will they mitigate against the impact becoming severely damaging to vulnerable young people?
Reply
Thank you for your question.
The monitoring of impact will be carried out through the 11-19 Commissioner Post which will continue within our newly proposed structure. The Commissioner has a very effective 11-19 Advisory Board, where you are a member, and we will want the Commissioner to report back on a regular basis the impact of the decisions we make. The role of the Commissioner is to regularly evaluate the data on the needs of, and provision available for that age group.
The key to mitigating against the main impact of our decisions will be to ensure that, through the County Council’s information systems, effective information and signposting is available to young people. This should ensure that the broad range of provision for 11-19 year olds is readily known to the young people and their families. 15 Supplementary Question
Voluntary and community organisations offered good value for money and would welcome the opportunity to deliver more to the age grouping 11 to 19 years. Was any consideration being given to retaining some funding to support this service?
Reply
The Director of Children’s Services confirmed that she would look at the resources available. She noted that voluntary sector groups were alerted when contracts were coming to an end and added that she always sought best value from the many providers her service used.
16
Agenda Item 8 Service and Budget Planning 2011-14
Update on responses to Norfolk’s Big Conversation for Children’s Services
1. Introduction 1.1 Appendix 4 to item 8 is a summary of the responses received in respect of the Children’s Services budget proposals in the Big Conversation up to 31st December 2010. This briefing paper updates Members of the Panel about responses and a DVD received since then up until the closing date of 10th January 2011 and should be read alongside Appendix 4, Section B. The full responses including the DVD are available in the member’s room.
1.2 Note: this update covers responses relevant to the work of this panel – it does not update about responses covering the remit of other Overview and Scrutiny Panels.
2. Overview 2.1 Since 31st December 2010, there have been over 5,000 additional comments from the public, young people, carers, Norfolk County Council staff and 50 organisations on the Children’s Services Big Conversation budget proposals including a DVD from the Benjamin Foundation.
2.2 In addition: There have been 4 petitions regarding proposal B3 – end the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over – with a combined total of over 1700 signatures There has been 1 petition regarding proposal B4 - end subsidy for denominational transport; end the funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies - with 148 signatures There has been 1 petition regarding proposal B11 - Cease County Council funding for youth services – with 48 signatures We also received 328 Hands in response to the proposal to Cease County Council funding for youth services (B11) A total of 3800 comments were received from the High Schools, youth clubs, young carer’s groups and the Area Youth Forum in the West of the County, representing the views of around 300 young people aged 11-19 We received a composite response from the Children with Disabilities fieldwork teams, Aiming High for Disabled Children team and the residential short break units for disabled children.
1 An analysis of all responses at the close of the consultation period shows that we received the most comments on: B11 - Cease County Council funding for youth services B3 - End the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over B4 - End the subsidy for denominational transport; end the funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies B6 - Re-design and re-shape special education needs service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required B5 - Review the school crossing patrol service.
And the fewest responses on: B15 - Procurement savings on placements for looked after children B19 - Reduced and redesigned management and support arrangements as consequence of service redesigns B2 - Staff reductions as a consequence of the scaling back of capital budget for smaller building projects B14 - Redesign management and support as a consequence of the redesigning of school-focussed services B17 - Smarter, more efficient processes for conducting child death reviews and the work of the Local Children's Safeguarding Board.
3 Responses 3.1 Since 31st December 2010, responses have been received from the public as well as the following organisations:
Antingham Parish Council Association of Teachers & Lecturers (Norwich Branch) Autism Anglia Bacton and Edingthorpe Parish Council Broadland District Council Carers Council for Norfolk Diss Town Council East Norfolk 6th Form College Family Voice Great Yarmouth Borough Council King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council Middleton Parish Council Momentum (Norfolk) NASUWT (Teachers Union) NHS Norfolk Nightingale First School Norfolk & Norwich Dyslexia Association Norfolk and Waveney Mental Health Trust Norfolk Area Youth Panel Norfolk Area Youth Panel Chairman’s Forum Norfolk Campaign for Accessible Education Norfolk Children & Adolescent Mental Health Service Norfolk Community Cohesion Network
2 Norfolk Community Health and Care Norfolk Constabulary Norfolk Disabled Parents Alliance Norfolk Governors’ Network Norfolk In-Care Council Norfolk Parent Partnership Norfolk SEN Network Norfolk Young Carers Forum North Norfolk District Council North Walsham Town Council Norwich City Council Playing For Success Roydon Parish Council Safer Thetford Action Group Schools Forum SNAPP (Schools in Norfolk at Primary Phase) South Norfolk District Council Students Union City College Norwich The Benjamin Foundation The Broads Authority The Indigo Foundation The Matthew Project Unthank Family Centre Upwell Parish Council Voluntary Norfolk Wymondham Town Council YMCA Norfolk.
4. Summary of Views 4.1 The comments received since 31st December 2010 reflect the themes highlighted in Appendix 4 Section B and should be read alongside, namely:
4.1.1 B3 - End the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over Comments on the post-16 transport subsidy reflected the views expressed in Section B. New comments reflected that this would threaten the viability of some post-16 courses thereby impacting upon other students not directly affected by the removal of the subsidy and that this proposal goes against two of Norfolk County Council’s ambitions, namely that Norfolk be an Aspirational Place with Vibrant and Strong Communities.
4.1.2 B6 - Re-design and re-shape special education needs service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required As in Section B, the balance of responses reflected the Local Authority’s statutory duty to issue statements, that there will be an increase in tribunals, that the most vulnerable will suffer, that the upcoming Green Paper will have to shape the future of support.
3 4.1.3 B11 – Cease County Council funding for youth services Comments reflected the views expressed in Section B. Of the new comments, one group response from several parents of young carers stated their youth group (Monday Night Youth Project) is vital for their children – giving them confidence, someone to talk to re their frustrations and respite from caring, thereby aiding family relationships. Other responses related to organisations not being able to provide training and small grants for new groups in the voluntary sector, thereby reducing the numbers of likely volunteers within the county. Particular concerns were expressed about the ceasing of support for the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme and ceasing funding for youth provisions for children with special educational needs and young carers.
4.1.4 B18 – Reduce the scale and capacity of family support services Comments received reflect the views expressed in Section B. Of the new comments one stated that the impact for disabled parents, especially in conjunction with Adults Social Services budget proposal to raise the eligibility criteria (A14) would be “huge and catastrophic” and another suggests that this will generate greater costs in the future due to poorer mental and physical health. The composite response from Children with Disabilities Teams included the following statement: “Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by section 25 of the Children & Young Person's Act 2008) imposes a duty on Local Authorities to provide breaks from caring to assist parents and others who provide care for disabled children to continue to do so, or to do so more effectively… This duty comes into effect from April 2011”. The group also stated that there is substantial research showing that short breaks for disabled children directly prevent family breakdown / requests for children to be looked after / out-of-county placements.
4.2 The following additional points, not previously reflected, were raised in the responses from organisations:
4.2.1 Response from the Benjamin Foundation One of the justifications for the re-positioning of the Connexions service was that well-qualified and experienced youth workers would be available to provide the support that Connexions would no longer be in a position to supply. If there are to be no youth workers this assurance should not have been made. There is an assumption the voluntary sector is in a position to pick up the slack left by the cessation of the youth service. While this may be the case in some areas, it should not be seen as a reason to cease providing a service. It should be noted that third sector organisations would need to be sufficiently funded in order to provide additional services and to meet the needs of a larger group of service users. Existing changes to Connexions have already resulted in a lack of opportunity for young people to self-refer to a holistic Information Advice and Guidance service.
4 The cuts being proposed are likely to lead to more cost-intensive interventions being needed to prevent crisis interventions. The outcome of the proposals, if implemented, are likely to be: - Negative impact on school attendance - Increasing Not in Employment Education or Training figures - Increasing levels of anti-social behaviour - Increased offending rates - Increasing levels of teenage pregnancy - Increased self-harming and other manifestations of poor emotional well-being - Rural isolation. Outsourcing of services must be carefully planned in order to prevent expensive spot purchasing which can lead to uncertainty and inconsistency for service users. These proposals are ill-informed and politically driven. There is a real danger that Norfolk’s vulnerable population, including our young people, could become part of a forgotten generation.
4.2.2 Response from South Norfolk District Council The Place Survey shows activities for teenagers are a top priority to residents. There should be some transitional arrangements in place as volunteers come forward to replace activities currently delivered. Will have immediate impact on South Norfolk Youth Action group – a very successful partnership bringing young people and statutory bodies together. Would like to see an impact assessment of this proposal and how the extent to which the difference between the needs of urban and rural young people have been taken into account.
4.2.3 Response from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council There will be a cumulative impact of the total loss of the youth service and the end of the subsidy for Post-16 transportation along with proposals from other areas of Norfolk County Council business. Educational attainment in West Norfolk is declining from a base already well below the national average, and it is important these proposals do not make an already poor situation worse. Some of the proposals impact on residents of rural Norfolk as opposed to those living in towns. Transitional arrangements will be central to the success of whatever package of measures is finally agreed upon – particularly for the support given to those running youth groups. If the advice and guidance from the youth service stops overnight, where do volunteers go for support?
4.2.4 Response from North Norfolk District Council Strongly oppose the intention to end the subsidy for Post-16 transport, a view shared by many Local Strategic Partnership partners in the District including town and parish councils, the skills partnership and the business forum. This would have a detrimental
5 effect on the life chances of young people. Combined with the ending of the Education Maintenance Allowance this could have an impact on the future viability of Paston College itself. The expectation that scarce resources will be used as efficiently and effectively as possible applies to North Norfolk District Council as much as the County, therefore issues of mutual interest should be pursued together and, where appropriate, with others.
4.2.5 Response from Great Yarmouth Borough Council Ceasing funding for the youth service will lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour levels, particularly as the service has been vital in the support and guidance provided to local youth clubs provided by the voluntary and community sector. Removal of the post-16 transport subsidy will impact most heavily on young people in rural areas, putting them at a disadvantage to those living in urban areas. Family Intervention Projects are holistic and save money both in the short and long term.
4.2.6 Response from Norwich City Council Higher levels of deprivation and lower levels of attainment in the city would mean that proposals would have a disproportionately negative impact on children living there. Norwich City Council commented that absenteeism is higher in the city than elsewhere in the county; that attainment is below the national average; that 30% of Looked After Children in the county live in Norwich; and that teenage pregnancy is 39% higher than in the rest of the county.
4.2.7 Response from Broadland District Council Some children and young people will be unable to engage with education and training (and consequently employment) due to the cumulative impact of the ending of the subsidy for post-16 transport, the reduction in the scale and capacity of the attendance service and the further reductions in the Connexions service. A recent study by the University of York estimated the average individual life-time public service cost of Not in Employment Education and Training 16-18 year-olds at £56,300. Reductions in the youth service will lead to an increase in anti- social behaviour as well as increased numbers of young people requiring crisis intervention services.
4.2.8 Response from Norfolk Constabulary Withdrawal of partnership working carries a risk of skills loss and future resistance to engage. Increasing costs for young people to attend further education will most heavily impact on the most disadvantaged families, particularly in rural areas. There is the potential for increase in the number of young people not in employment, education, or training
6 (NEET), which could lead to rises in anti-social behaviour and minor crime. Reducing the scale and capacity of the attendance service would directly impact on the effectiveness of the safer schools partnership. This is likely to lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and a general reduction in public confidence. Ceasing funding for youth services will likely lead to an increase in unfocused youth activity – the greatest cause for reports of anti- social behaviour, which is in turn the largest factor affecting public confidence and feeling of safety. Looked after children are already disadvantaged and require special consideration and support. Reduction in support is likely to result in higher levels of involvement in anti-social behaviour and criminal activity leading to higher resource demands for other organisations.
5. Suggestions New suggestions not already reflected in Appendix 4, Section B, include:
5.1 B1 - No new borrowing to supplement government grant for capital projects in school Schools require more capital investment, not less There needs to be a competitive tendering process to ensure value for money, rather than relying on Norfolk Property Services New schools and school building projects are needed due to the new homes being built in Norfolk
5.2 B3 - End the subsidy for school and college transport for those aged 16 and over This should be means tested There should be an assessment of the number of people who will be affected by this, especially in rural areas
5.3 B4 - End subsidy for denominational transport; end the funding of transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies End all support to denominational status of schools – churches should pay if they want these
5.4 B5 - Review the school crossing patrol service In places where two crossing patrols operate together this could be cut to one If a school crossing patrol is removed there should be a pelican crossing / traffic lights installed Get parents to volunteer for this South Norfolk District Council’s team of Neighbourhood Officers could play a vital role in establishing the crossing requirement and helping to find local volunteers to resource it
7 5.5 B6 - Re-design and re-shape special education needs service, so that fewer statements of special education need are required Maintain a universal service – this could exist at arms length from the authority as a “social co-operative” this could be funded in part by charging all schools according to their size and number of children eligible for the new pupil premium Educational psychology and specialist support could be made more efficient by: Reducing Specialist Support Teaching planning meetings Providing a consultation service only at school action / school action plus Providing a training programme to schools on how to carry out their own limited assessment and Special Educational Needs monitoring Standardising reporting and assessment procedures Generating income for more specialist or additional work Review data on current activity where delays are known to be occurring Focus on early literacy interventions and phonic based teaching as based on best evidence Set key performance indicators on attainment Develop help lines and interactive websites for easier access to advice and information Build capacity and train school staff Talk to PGCE providers to improve the Special Educational Needs element of educational courses All of this cannot be done in haste so change needs to be managed
5.6 B7 - Reduce the scale and capacity of the attendance service An area where the public could help out by reporting any children seen out and about during school hours Prosecution of parents for non-attendance of pupils should be more rigorous
5.7 B11 – Cease County Council funding for youth services The Broads Authority wishes to work with Norfolk County Council in partnership on environmental and outdoor education to see if there’s more to be done to make the Centre at Whitlingham viable. Give Whitlingham Outdoor Education Centre a chance to reorganise through a phased reduction in the subsidy.
8
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 10 March 2011 Item No. 8
Forward Work Programme: Scrutiny
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary This report asks Members to review and develop the programme for scrutiny
1. The Programme
1.1. The Outline Programme for Scrutiny (Appendix A) has been updated to show progress since the 13 January 2011 Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
1.2 Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel can add new topics to the scrutiny programme in line with the criteria below: -
(i) High profile – as identified by: Members (through constituents, surgeries, etc) Public (through surveys, Citizen’s Panel, etc) Media External inspection (Audit Commission, Ombudsman, Internal Audit, Inspection Bodies)
(ii) Impact – this might be significant because of: The scale of the issue The budget that it has The impact that it has on members of the public (this could be either a small issue that affects a large number of people or a big issue that affects a small number of people)
(iii) Quality – for instance, is it: Significantly under performing An example of good practice Overspending
(iv) It is a Corporate Priority
1.3 All Overview & Scrutiny Panel members may put forward considered proposals for a future scrutiny review. Such proposals will need to include supporting information and an outline of the objectives that may be achieved. The Scrutiny Planning Group will consider all proposals in the light of the guidance contained in paragraph 1.2 above and seek further information where necessary. The Group will then report back to the Panel recommending approval to add items to the scrutiny forward programme on the basis of their relative priorities.
Originated by Mick Sabec 2011-02-08 version: final
2 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
2.1 The crime and disorder implications of the various scrutiny topics will be considered when the scrutiny takes place
3 Equality Impact Assessment
3.1 This report is not directly relevant to equality, in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups.
4 Any Other implications
4.1 Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
Action Required
(1) To consider the attached Outline Programme (Appendix A) and agree the scrutiny topics listed and reporting dates. (2) The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is invited to consider whether there are any further new topics for inclusion on the scrutiny programme in line with the criteria at para 1.2.
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Name Telephone Number Email address
Mick Sabec 01603 223499 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A Outline Programme for Scrutiny
Standing Item for Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel: Update for 10 March 2011 This is only an outline programme and will be amended as issues arise or priorities change Scrutiny is normally a two-stage process: • Stage 1 of the process is the scoping stage. Draft terms of reference and intended outcomes will be developed as part of this stage. • The Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Panel or a Member Group will carry out the detailed scrutiny but other approaches can be considered, as appropriate (e.g. ‘select committee’ style by whole O&S Panel). • On the basis that the detailed scrutiny is carried out by a Member Group, Stage 2 is reporting back to the O&S Panel by the Group.
This Panel welcomes the strategic ambitions for Norfolk. These are: • A vibrant, strong and sustainable economy • Aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills • An inspirational place with a clear sense of identity
These ambitions inform the NCC Objectives from which scrutiny topics for this Panel will develop, as well as using the outlined criteria at para 1.2 above.
Changes to Programme from that previously submitted to the Panel on 13 January 2011
Added None Deleted None
Topic Outline Objective Cabinet Stage 1 Stage 2 Requested Comment Portfolio Area Terms of (report back by Reference to Panel) Scrutiny Items Outstanding/ Ongoing 1. Levels of Consider and review the Children’s 7 October 10 March Overview & The findings of the working group attendance in strategies and plans in Services 2010 2011 Scrutiny will be presented to the Overview & schools place to improve levels of Panel Scrutiny Panel on 10 March 2011 attendance March 2010 Work closely with schools in order to highlight areas of best practice and success. Identify, in partnership with Norfolk schools and other agencies, how further improvements could be made to raise levels of attendance. 2. The To review the current Children’s 14 January 10 March Overview & The findings of the working group Recruitment strategy and situation Services 2010 2011 Scrutiny will be presented to the Overview & and relating to the recruitment Panel Scrutiny Panel on 10 March 2011 Retention of and retention of head July 2007 Head teachers. Teachers To draw up recommendations to help improve the recruitment and retention of head teachers.
3. Energy & Raise Members Children’s Not Not Overview & A scrutiny review will be undertaken Environmental awareness of current Services applicable – applicable Scrutiny by the full panel on 12 May 2011. Issues initiatives within Children’s scrutiny by – scrutiny Panel Services, highlighting good full panel by full May 2010 practice and areas for panel improvement. Identify the means by which Members can be involved in supporting future developments. 4. Child Consider the impact of Children’s To be To be Overview & Lord Laming’s report will be protection after Lord Laming’s report on Services determined determined Scrutiny superseded by the review of child Lord Laming’s child protection referrals. Panel protection being undertaken by report Examine whether March 2010 Professor Munro. The final report Children’s Services are and recommendations from this responding effectively to review are expected in April 2011. increased levels of Draft Terms of Reference for a demand. scrutiny review will be prepared and Identify priorities for the considered in the light of the future planning and recommendations contained in resourcing of child Professor Munro’s report. protection responsibilities in Norfolk.
5. The take up Highlight the reasons why Children’s Not Not Overview & A report was made to the Panel at its of school young people are not Services applicable – applicable – Scrutiny meeting on 7 October 2010 on work meals & free taking school meals. scrutiny by scrutiny by Panel completed by a cross departmental school meals Identify any key factors full panel full panel March 2010 project examining all aspects of school where improvements will catering. result in a significant Forthcoming changes in legislation will increase in the number of have an impact on the eligibility for free meals taken. school meals. The need for a scrutiny review will be considered by the Panel after changes in eligibility have been implemented. 6. The To be determined Children’s To be To be Overview & This topic was placed on the forward availability and Services determined determined Scrutiny programme by the former Overview & condition of Panel Scrutiny Panel. toilets in September schools for 2007 pupils. 7. Strategy to To be determined Children’s To be To be Overview & This topic was placed on the forward combat racism Services determined determined Scrutiny programme by the former Overview & and promote Panel Scrutiny Panel. inter cultural September A briefing paper was presented to the understanding 2006 Panel in March 2008. . A further scoping exercise will be undertaken
Scrutiny items completed since 2007
Date completed Topic Method July 2009 Consultation processes within Children’s Services Scrutiny working group July 2009 Portrayal of young people in the media Scrutiny working group January 2009 Area based youth services Scrutiny working group May 2008 Staff development in Children’s Services Scrutiny working group May 2008 Priorities for educational aspects of Children’s Services, developed as a result of Ofsted’s Full panel Annual Performance Assessment. March 2008 The number of Looked After Children Scrutiny working group March 2008 Financial management and reserves (in Children’s Services) Scrutiny working group May 2007 Education for children with medical needs Scrutiny working group May 2007 School balances Scrutiny working group
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 10 March 2011 Item No. 9
Levels of Attendance in Schools
Report by the Chairman of the Scrutiny Working Group
Summary
This report summarises the findings of the working group and highlights some conclusions for the Panel to consider.
Work is underway to re-design the Attendance Service, following the agreement of Norfolk County Council’s 2011/12 budget. This report therefore reflects the current position of the service, but in view of future changes the working group feels that a second phase of scrutiny should be undertaken to evaluate their impact.
The Panel is asked to consider the working group’s recommendations.
1. Chairman’s Foreword
If ever there was a subject that epitomizes the overall success of our schools it is that of high levels of attendance.
Those of us involved in this working group have been pleased to note, from the schools we visited, that this is now taken very seriously right through from nursery, infant, primary to secondary – thus setting the culture for the whole of school life.
In the good examples we saw, all school staff were involved in achieving this aim together with parents, carers and school governors – creating a ‘family’ culture around the school and making the benefits of participating in school life clear to children and young people.
Norfolk County Council’s aim for young people to be ‘healthy, happy, safe, loved, valued, respected and to have high aspirations for the future’ can be no better espoused than through having committed and involved members of a school community.
Excellent practices have been demonstrated to this working group, ably guided by the Attendance Service, and it is our hope that this will continue and become a feature of all our schools’ daily lives to ensure the improvements continue.
Councillor Shelagh Hutson, Chairman
2. Background
2.1 On 11 March 2010 the Panel agreed to add ‘Attendance Levels in Schools’ to its forward work programme, as recommended by the Scrutiny Planning Group which had advised that:
“Attendance levels have a high profile in terms of media coverage and are also the subject of concerns raised by schools and the public. At an individual level, low level of attendance has a significant impact on the educational attainment of a young person and hence their outcomes in later life. It is also a key area of the County Council’s performance and one which will be examined in future inspections of Children’s Services.”
2.2 The Terms of Reference agreed by the Panel are attached at Appendix A of this report.
2.3 Our work programme, which includes a list of ‘expert witnesses’ and schools visited, is attached at Appendix B of this report. We would like to thank all those people who assisted us in our review for the valuable contributions they made.
3. School attendance patterns in Norfolk
3.1 Norfolk has a historical pattern of poor attendance at both primary and secondary school phases. When NCC’s performance is compared to that of our statistical neighbours and national data (set out at Appendix C of this report), it is evident that we have been lagging behind other local authorities, despite year on year improvement.
3.2 Data for the last complete academic year (2008/09) shows that Norfolk had 5.7% of persistent absent pupils at secondary school, when the national average was 4.9%. This put NCC into the bottom quartile of local authority performance. While current data available for 2009/10 indicates that NCC has improved and is on track to meet the national target of no more than 5%, further monitoring will be required to ensure the improvement trend continues.
3.3 An overview of the national context, including policy and performance targets, is set out at Appendix D for information.
4. Reasons for absence
4.1 Attendance data shows that the most common reasons for absence are: Illness (both long term and short term) – by far the most common reason for absence and something which Ofsted has challenged NCC about. Agreed family holiday in term time - this happens less often at secondary school phase than primary phase. Study leave – at secondary school phase only, although NCC does not advise schools to give this, preferring work to be undertaken in school.
4.2 Other reasons for authorised absence include: medical and dental appointments, exclusions (NCC is regarded as a local authority which has a low level of permanently excluded pupils) and enforced closure (as a result of extreme weather or heating problems, for example).
4.3 We are also aware that pupils can be absent for a variety of reasons which are personal to them and give no cause for concern. However, some absence (whether this is arriving late after the end of registration period, single days, part of a pattern or persistent) can be an indicator of complex and wide ranging needs. These can be a result of: Poor relationships with peers and teachers Alleged bullying Family pressure – where a child has caring responsibilities, for example Parental and sibling illness Wider safeguarding issues, such as domestic violence or hidden harm Parents condoning absence – following a generational or cultural trend Low aspirations Disengagement – for example, feeling lost and unsupported in a large school Bad habit Behavioural problems
4.4 Heavy snow and cold temperatures can prove to be testing for schools and families. In 2010, some schools closed for a variety of reasons – lack of school transport, insufficient number of teachers, no facility to provide hot meals and heating problems. We applaud those schools that stay open during severe weather but are concerned that some schools may decide their best strategy is to close. During the bad weather in 2010, many schools were challenged by parents about their reasons for closure and we recommend that Children’s Services should monitor all such closures to ensure that decisions are appropriate.
4.5 This year, all schools will have a closure day on the Thursday of the Norfolk Show so that pupils will have the opportunity to attend without school attendance figures being affected. However, it is clear that many children will not be able to go to the Show and schools are concerned that this approach will encourage a high level of absence on the Friday. It would be helpful for the Overview and Scrutiny Panel to review this decision in light of the experience surrounding the 2011 Norfolk Show.
5. Tackling school absence in Norfolk
5.1 NCC has had an Attendance Strategy in place since 2004. It has recently been revised in preparation to meet new Government expectations and will be finalised when the new Ofsted framework for the inspection of schools is produced, expected late summer/autumn 2011 for implementation in January 2012. We support the aims and approach set out in the draft Strategy (attached at Appendix E). It replicates nationally recognised best practice and elements of common practice shared by those local authorities which are performing well (set out at Appendix F).
5.2 Currently NCC’s Attendance Service performs a number of statutory functions on behalf of the local authority. Its main purpose is the promotion and, where necessary, enforcement of good school attendance in order to enable children and young people to benefit from the educational opportunities available to them. It includes a central, strategic team as well as 20 Attendance Improvement Officers (AIOs), who are based in operational areas and managed by area team managers. Examples of the types of services provided are listed at Appendix G. The positive impact that this service has had on attendance levels is evident in the attendance data and is something we should celebrate.
5.3 We appreciate the necessity to scale back the scope and volume of the Attendance Service, but feel that this will be a serious challenge for NCC and that it should be kept under review. Schools brought to our attention, without exception, the high value that they place on the service. In fact all schools commended and paid tribute to the support they receive from AIOs. We therefore recommend that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel should commission a second phase of scrutiny to evaluate the impact of service re-design after a suitable period of time.
5.4 We understand that the re-designed service will focus on working with schools to develop interventions and prosecuting parents. There are some specific elements that we would like to see taken forward in the re-design. These are as follows:
1) A robust Attendance Strategy, which should be considered and agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel as a framework for implementing the re- designed service.
2) The managers of the new Children in Need Teams1 should be required to have professional training in attendance issues.
This is to ensure a consistent level of guidance and support for AIOs, schools, governors, magistrates and other partners.
3) The County Strategic Lead for Attendance should be required to have some input into evaluating the performance of AIOs.
This is to ensure a consistent use of standard procedures and practices that all staff adhere to.
4) The County Strategic Lead for Attendance should be required to ensure that there is consistent and robust enforcement of legal intervention.
The number of legal interventions has increased over the last four years, which demonstrates the positive impact that the Attendance Service has had in this area. However, fewer AIOs in future means that it will be even more crucial for schools to get this right. NCC will need to ensure that alternative sources of support are available for schools.
1 Multi disciplinary teams, based in the three operational areas. 5. 5 Other Children’s Services Teams provide additional, specialist support to those children who are recognised as being vulnerable or having additional needs (e.g. Looked After Children, Young Carers, Traveller Children and children from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, those with special educational needs and those who have been bullied). The positive impact that these teams have had on attendance levels (described at Appendix H), particularly Parent Support Advisers, has proved to be invaluable.
5.6 Again, reducing the scale and capacity of these services is a challenge for NCC. It is vital that we work with partners to ensure that these children will be able to access similar support to keep them engaged with their education.
5.7 We learned about some excellent examples of partnership working during our enquiry. Examples are set out at Appendix I. Most importantly, we observed that even where the focus of partnership work may not have been on education, it could still deliver improved attendance and reduced exclusion as a result of an early intervention and support approach. While NCC is working through the implications of changing priorities and budget reductions together with partners, it is a good opportunity to explore and maximise partnership or joint working opportunities to improve attendance.
5.8 We welcome the fact that the Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), part of the Norfolk and Waveney Mental Health Partnership Trust, is currently working closely with NCC on a schools policy. This will mean that recommendations for pupils are no longer made without talking to the school and assessing the child first. It has recognised that it needs to be aware of the issues around school attendance and work with NCC and other partners to support children and their families. We would like to see other areas of the health service take a similar view. Norfolk’s Local Medical Council commented that GPs agreed that absence from school could damage children’s prospects. It had concerns, however, that working with schools to encourage good attendance, particularly where a pupil is absent as a result of illness, could have a significant impact on their resources and damage the therapeutic relationship that GPs have with families. Working more closely with health colleagues on attendance issues should be explored further.
5.9 We visited a number of schools (with good and improving attendance levels) to find out how good attendance is encouraged and how they work with NCC. It was reassuring to observe that, for the most part, there is a consistent attendance practice across the county, which is owned by schools and supported by NCC. This includes: Having vigorous attendance policies in place Schools making sure that pupils, parents and carers are clear about our expectations regarding attendance Monitoring attendance levels alongside NCC and intervening if levels slip Staff and school governors using consistent approaches and positive language about attendance Challenging and supporting pupils with high levels of unauthorised absence/persistent absence Supporting pupils with identified poor attendance records or who the school considers to be vulnerable Reward systems to celebrate good behaviour and attendance Contacting home very promptly on the first day of absence – often by text messaging parents.
5.10 However, there was a varying degree of emphasis placed on good attendance at the schools we visited. Those schools which placed a strong emphasis on good attendance told us about some excellent practice that has clearly had a positive impact, such as:
1) Innovative reward schemes to celebrate good/improved attendance.
Many schools have weekly, termly and annual awards for good attendance and some give prizes to classes, year groups or houses as well as individual pupils. These included Prom points (for good attainment and behaviour as well as attendance), a lottery scheme where prizes are awarded (through parents) to someone from the form with the highest attendance, going to the front of the dinner queue and ‘top dog’/’top cat’. Some schools had secured sponsorship from local businesses for rewards. These types of incentives, drawing on peer pressure, had resulted in dramatically reduced persistent absence levels.
2) Designating member(s) of staff and school governors with responsibility for monitoring and improving attendance.
Giving a senior member of staff, such as a Deputy Manager or Deputy House Leaders, and a school governor responsibility for dealing with attendance issues clearly helps to create a culture of good attendance and keep absence levels down. Some schools place such a degree of importance on this that they release senior members of staff from their teaching duties to dedicate time to that work. For example, we observed that allowing a Deputy Head to spend time on attendance matters for one whole day a week could bring significant improvement.
3) Re-integration plans for pupils with low attendance.
Welcoming and supporting pupils back into the school community can help both teachers and pupils to better understand the reasons for absence and can help to prevent further and related absence.
4) School staff meeting and greeting pupils and parents at the school gate and saying “see you tomorrow” as they leave.
This helps to build a whole school culture around the importance of good attendance and encourages pupils to be present. Again, the positive impact this has is clearly reflected in schools’ attendance data.
5) One to one working between school staff and its Traveller pupils and their families.
One school told us that this approach had helped to raise its overall attendance levels to 90%.
6) Displaying attendance data on colourful charts and graphs.
This helps to reinforce a whole school culture of good attendance and inspires peer pressure where reward schemes are in place.
7) Checking with the register that pupils are present at the beginning of each lesson.
This helps schools to act immediately when an attendance issue arises.
8) Developing a culture of punctuality.
One Headteacher told us that he imposed detentions for lateness, which had been very effective.
5.11 We would like to commend the fact that the Headteachers and staff that we met were all successfully tackling attendance issues within their schools. It is evident that schools have adopted and adapted best practice to suit their particular needs and that there is a great deal of expertise that could be shared. If this was widely publicised, it could help NCC to focus its resources on supporting those schools which are most in need. We recommend that Children’s Services should work with schools to encourage inter-school liaison or sharing ideas on attendance matters.
6. Conclusion
6.1 It is clear from our meetings with Heatheachers and the improvement in attendance figures that a great deal of dedication and commitment has been put in by schools, parents, partner organisations and Children’s Services – ably led and encouraged by the Attendance Service. We must ensure that this focus in school life does not diminish and indeed that more emphasis is encouraged where necessary to ensure that this improvement continues.
7. Impact on Children and Young People
7.1 Improving levels of school attendance will help Norfolk’s children and young people to achieve their potential and be safe.
8. Resource Implications
8.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any direct resource implications.
9. Other Implications:
9.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA): This report does not require a decision or recommendation on a strategy or policy and therefore an equality impact assessment is not considered necessary. However, the working group recognises that those children who are recognised as being vulnerable or having additional needs (e.g. Looked After Children, Young Carers, Traveller Children and children from BAME communities, those with special educational needs and those who have been bullied) need additional support to help them stay engaged with their education. Future working with partners will help NCC to make the best use of the available support for pupils and parents with the greatest need.
9.2 Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act Implications: This report does not require a decision or recommendation on a strategy or policy and therefore an equality impact assessment is not considered necessary. However, the working group recognises that there is a clear link between school absence and youth crime and anti-social behaviour. By ensuring that attendance levels continue to improve, NCC will help to reduce the number of young people who are at risk of offending.
9.3 Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
10. Action Required
10.1 The Panel is asked to consider whether there is any further information that it would like to receive and to agree the working group’s recommendations, which are as follows:
1) Children’s Services should continue to monitor school attendance levels in Norfolk, to ensure the improvement trend continues and report on a regular basis to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
2) Children’s Services should monitor school closures in severe weather to ensure that decisions to close are appropriate.
3) Children’s Services should review the impact of the Thursday closure day in light of the experience surrounding the 2011 Norfolk Show and report back to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
4) The Panel should consider and agree an Attendance Strategy, as a framework for implementing the re-designed service.
5) Children’s Services should include the following elements in the re- designed Attendance Service: The managers of the new Children in Need Teams should be required to have professional training in attendance issues. The County Strategic Lead for Attendance should be required to have some input into evaluating the performance of AIOs. The County Strategic Lead for Attendance should ensure that there is consistent and robust enforcement of legal intervention.
6) Children’s Services should continue to explore partnership or joint working opportunities to improve attendance, including working more closely with health colleagues, as part of the service transformation.
7) Children’s Services should work with schools to encourage inter-school liaison or sharing ideas on attendance matters.
8) The Panel should commission a future scrutiny review to evaluate the impact of service re-design on attendance levels.
11. Background Papers
Report to the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel, 11 March 2010: Scrutiny Forward Work Programme Children and Children and Young People’s Plan 2011-2014: Needs Assessment for Norfolk Report to the Cabinet, 24 January 2011: Service and Budget Planning 2011-14 Report to the Council, 14 February 2011: Recommendations from Cabinet meeting held on 24 January 2011 – Council Plan and 2011/14 Budget
Members of the Working Group: Bert Bremner Gerry Cook (unable to participate owing to ill health) Shelagh Hutson (Chairman) Mervyn Scutter Beverley Spratt
Officer Contact: Jo Martin Scrutiny Support Manager Tel. 01603 223814 Email: [email protected]
If you need this Agenda in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Jo Martin on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A
Norfolk County Council
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Terms of reference for scrutiny of
Levels of attendance in schools
Scrutiny by
A Working Group
Membership of working group
Members - Bert Bremner, Gerry Cook, Shelagh Hutson (Chairman), Mervyn Scutter and Beverley Spratt
Officers - Val Creasy, Attendance and Exclusions Manager Jo Martin, Scrutiny Support Manager
Administration by – Jo Bamford and Michele Herring, Children’s Services
Reasons for scrutiny
On 11 March the Panel agreed to add ‘Attendance levels in schools’ to its forward work programme, as recommended by the Scrutiny Planning Group which had advised that:
“Attendance levels have a high profile in terms of media coverage and are also the subject of concerns raised by schools and the public. At an individual level, low level of attendance has a significant impact on the educational attainment of a young person and hence their outcomes in later life. It is also a key area of the County Council’s performance and one which will be examined in future inspections of Children’s Services.”
Purpose and objectives of study
1. To establish a clear picture of the current attendance patterns within Norfolk, for both primary and secondary schools.
2. To establish what Norfolk County Council is currently doing to improve levels of attendance in schools and whether this has been successful.
3. To highlight areas of best practice and success and any areas for improvement.
4. To identify how, in partnership with schools and other agencies, further improvements could be made to raise levels of attendance across Norfolk.
Issues and questions to be addressed
Why do children miss school?
What information does Norfolk County Council (NCC) have regarding levels of attendance in schools? Is it being used effectively?
What are the responsibilities of NCC, Schools and Parents in ensuring that children attend school?
What is the national policy for reducing absence? Are there any national targets? Is there any best practice guidance?
How is NCC tackling school absence? What strategies and plans does NCC have in place to improve the levels of attendance in schools?
Does NCC have any performance measures relating to school attendance and what is the current performance against them?
What support does NCC provide to vulnerable children or children with additional needs (e.g. Looked After Children, Young Carers, Traveller Children and children from BME communities, those with special educational needs, those who have been bullied)?
What budget has NCC allocated for Education Welfare and what does it cover?
What training/support does NCC offer to key school staff, governors, parents and how effective is it?
What work is being done in partnership with other agencies and how effective is it? Do we commission any services (who, what, where, cost?)?
How does Norfolk County Council’s performance in improving attendance compare to local authorities in its family group/its statistical neighbours?
Do other authorities have different approaches to improving attendance? Are those approaches successful? Would they work in Norfolk?
What impact, if any, has NCC’s Organisational Review had on the service?
Are there any areas of best practice and success?
Are there any areas for improvement?
(The Group will also look at the implications of any relevant policy changes made by the new Government.)
List of people to speak to (this might be added to as the work progresses)
Internal Val Creasy, Attendance and Exclusions Manager and named officer for children missing education Attendance Improvement Officers Parent Support Advisers Co-ordinator Terry Cooke (Head of the Virtual School) Trisha Ciappara (Senior Specialist Teacher for Looked After Children) Cabinet Member for Children’s Services
External Headteachers from a cross section of schools – covering different age ranges/ performance/ areas of the county Partners who deliver commissioned services, if any Police (Community Support Officers) Health colleagues Youth Offending Team Norwich Families Unit
Planned outcomes
A report to the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel with the Group’s findings and recommendations on how to maximise the levels of attendance in schools across Norfolk.
Style and approach
Review of reasons for absence/attendance data and trends/roles and responsibilities Review of policy and performance information/local approaches to improve attendance/budget Review of training & support provided by NCC/partnership working Comparison of approach with other local authorities/impact of the Organisational Review on the service Panel-style meetings with internal and external witnesses Visits to a small cross-section of schools Discussion item/workshop session with Schools Forum and/or Children and Young People’s Trust
Deadlines and timetable
The Working Group will aim to make its final recommendations to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel in March 2011, but the detailed work programme will depend on availability of witnesses and emerging findings.
Any change to these Terms of Reference, including any extension of deadlines, will need the agreement of the full Panel.
Terms of reference agreed by Date
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 7 October 2010
Appendix B Attendance in Schools Working Group – Work Programme
Date of Topics ‘Expert Witnesses’ Issues/Questions for discussion meeting Reasons for absence Val Creasy, Why do children miss school? 10am on 7 Attendance and October Attendance data and trends Exclusions Manager, What information does Norfolk County Council (NCC) have regarding levels of attendance in NCC schools? Is it being used effectively? Legal requirements What are the responsibilities of NCC, Schools and Parents in ensuring that children attend school?
1 November Review of policy and Val Creasy What is the national policy for reducing absence? Are there any national targets? Is there any performance information best practice guidance? Terry Cooke (Head of Local approaches to improve School Performance, How is NCC tackling school absence? What strategies and plans does NCC have in place to attendance Organisation and improve the levels of attendance in schools? Inclusion; Head of the Budget Virtual School for Does NCC have any performance measures relating to school attendance and what is the current Children in Care), NCC performance against them?
Tricia Ciappara (Senior What support does NCC provide to vulnerable children or children with additional needs (e.g. Specialist Lead Teacher Looked After Children, Young Carers, Traveller Children and children from BME communities, for Looked After those with special educational needs, those who have been bullied)? Children), NCC What budget has NCC allocated for Education Welfare and what does it cover? David Sheppard (Senior Adviser, Equalities and Special School Development), NCC
22 November Training/support Val Creasy What training/support does NCC offer to key school staff, governors, parents and how effective is it? Partnership working Maureen Griffin, Debbie Gower and Claire What work is being done in partnership with other agencies and how effective is it? Do we Farrelly - Attendance commission any services (who, what, where, cost?)? Improvement Officers, NCC
Beverley Bird – Parent Support Adviser Coordinator, NCC
Sgt Tim Horrobin, Norfolk Constabulary (Safer Schools Partnerships)
Jo Whistlecraft – Education Worker, Youth Offending Team
Nick Bishop – Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), Norfolk and Waveney Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Nigel Andrews and Tina Garwood – The Families Unit, Norwich City Council
Written submission from Dr Simon Lockett, Medical Secretary, Norfolk & Waveney Local Medical Committee
1 December Comparison of approach with Val Creasy How does Norfolk County Council’s performance in improving attendance compare to local other local authorities authorities in its family group/its statistical neighbours?
Do other authorities have successful approaches to improving attendance? Would they work in Norfolk?
5 January Impact of the Organisation Cabinet Member for What impact, if any, has NCC’s Organisation Review had on the service? Review Children’s Services CANCELLED What impact are the proposed ‘Big Conversation’ cuts likely to have on attendance levels in Director of Children’s schools? Services
January/early Visits to sample of primary (List of schools visited set out below.) February schools
Visits to sample of secondary schools
25 January Review of additional/outstanding Val Creasy information and findings from school visits Jim Nixon, Headteacher City of Norwich School
17 February Review of findings so far, draft Cabinet Member for Are there any areas of best practice and success? conclusions & recommendations Children’s Services Are there any areas for improvement? Assistant Director Operations and Are there any outstanding areas that the Group would like to follow up? Integrated Services (for the Director of Children’s Services)
February Agree final report
Schools visited:
19 January 2011: Eaton Hall School (Special School), Norwich (Headteacher - Miss Valerie Moore)
24 January 2011: Mile Cross Primary, Norwich (Headteacher - Mr Stuart Allen) and Sewell Park College, Norwich (Headteacher - Ms Karen Topping)
25 January 2011: West Earlham Junior School, Norwich (Headteacher - Mr Tony Hull, Partnership Head with Costessey Junior, Norwich)
28 Jan 2011: Herman Primary, Gorleston (Headteacher - Mrs Kate Rutherford) and Flegg High School, Martham, East Norfolk (Headteacher - Mr Russell Boulton)
4 February 2011: Marshland High School, West Walton, West Norfolk (Headteacher - Mr Matthew Parr-Burman)
7 February 2011: Alderman Peel High School, Wells, North Norfolk (Headteacher - Mr Alastair Ogle), Sheringham High School & Sixth Form Centre, North Norfolk (Headteacher - Mr Tim Roderick) and Cromer High School, North Norfolk (Headteacher - Mr Glyn Hambling)
Appendix C
School attendance patterns within Norfolk
Primary Schools
Authorised Unauthorised Overall Absence % PA Pupils Absence Absence 07/08 08/09 09/10 07/08 08/09 09/10 07/08 08/09 09/10 07/08 08/09 09/10
Norfolk 4.87 4.68 4.65 0.49 0.53 0.50 5.35 5.20 5.16 1.90 1.70 1.40
National 4.69 4.66 0.57 0.64 5.26 5.30 1.70 1.50
Statistical 4.6 4.6 0.4 0.4 4.9 5.0 N/A N/A Neighbours
Secondary Schools
Authorised Unauthorised Overall Absence % PA Pupils Absence Absence 07/08 08/09 09/10 07/08 08/09 09/10 07/08 08/09 09/10 07/08 08/09 09/10
Norfolk 6.54 6.11 5.72 1.41 1.55 1.50 7.95 7.66 7.22 6.60 5.70 4.50
National 5.87 5.74 1.47 1.46 7.34 7.21 5.60 4.90
Statistical 5.9 5.8 1.1 1.1 7.1 6.9 4.9 4.3 Neighbours
This data is based on complete academic years except for data for 2009-10, which is based on two terms as the complete year is not available yet.
Appendix D
National context
1.1 The legislative framework for school attendance1
1.1.1 All children of compulsory school age should receive suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or through other arrangements. If a child is registered at school, parents have the primary responsibility for ensuring that their child attends regularly.
1.1.2 By law, schools are required to record in an attendance at every session the school is open to pupils. This should state whether a pupil is present, absent or engaged in an approved, supervised educational activity off-site, or unable to attend due to exceptional circumstances. If a compulsory school age pupil is absent, the register must show whether the absence is authorised or unauthorised. It must also record the nature of any approved, supervised educational activities. Schools are responsible for authorising absence, not parents.
1.1.3 Local authorities have a duty to enforce parents’ responsibility and to support and challenge schools in their management of pupil attendance.
1.2 National policy
1.2.1 The need to ensure good school attendance continues to be a central feature of the Government’s strategy to improve outcomes for children. Evidence has shown that regular and punctual attendance is essential to raising attainment. Young people who are not in school are more likely to drift into crime or other anti-social activity. They are also at greater risk of harm.
1.2.2 Since the change of Government in May 2010, the Department for Education has made it clear that poor attendance at school is not acceptable and that both schools and local authorities must continue to work to improve attendance. As well as raising overall attendance levels, there is an expectation that both schools and local authorities will focus on pupils who are persistently absent (PA pupils). These are pupils whose are missing 20% or more of the school year. Put another way, a child who has an attendance of 80% is only in school 4 days a week.
1 The legislative framework that all local authorities are expected to operate in relation to school attendance can be found in the Education Act 1996, the Education and Inspection Act 2006, the Children Act 1989 and 2004.
1.3 Performance targets
1.3.1 The previous Government had set an overall target for local authorities of having no more than 5% of PA pupils at secondary school phase. Local authorities are continuing to work towards that target since the change of Government in May 2010.
1.3.2 To date, no indication has been given about how performance will be judged in future and, for example, whether the existing target will change or if it will remain at all. The current Government is in the process of producing a new Ofsted framework for school inspections, which is expected to be published late summer/autumn 2011 for implementation in January 2012. NCC anticipates that attendance levels will continue to form part of that framework and that this will be examined in future inspections of local authority Children’s Services.
Appendix E Norfolk County Council Children’s Services
Attendance Strategy
1) Introduction and National Context A central feature of the Government’s strategy to have improved outcomes for children continues to relate to the need to ensure good school attendance. Evidence has shown that regular and punctual attendance is essential to the process of raising attainment; young people who are not in school are more likely to drift into crime or other anti-social activity.
With the change of Government in May 2010 it has been made clear that poor attendance at school is not acceptable and both schools and Local Authorities must continue to work to improve attendance. As well as overall attendance there is an expectation that there will also be a focus on pupils who are deemed to be a persistent absent pupil. These are pupils whose attendance is 80% or less. It has been researched previously and found that these pupils (about 7%) account for 35% of all absences. A child who has an attendance of 80% is only in school 4 days a week.
The legislative framework that all local authorities are expected to operate in relation to school attendance can be found in the Education Act 1996, the Education and Inspection Act 2006, the Children Act 1989 and 2004. Additional guidance defining expected practices can be found in various documents at www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolattendance
2) Local Context Norfolk’s Vision for Children and Young People is:
‘ We believe that all children and young people have the right to be healthy, happy, and safe; to be loved, valued and respected; and to have high aspirations for their future’.
“Norfolk is commissioning services that will: Increase levels of attendance in schools Implement the Attendance Strategy Support schools to identify and work with children and young people at risk of becoming a persistent absentee Continue to develop systems to identify children missing education”
In particular with attendance our expectations are that:
“Norfolk Children are attending School, Safe and Learning”.
This means that
1
. All children and young people in Norfolk have the right to have high aspirations for themselves, supported and encouraged by their parents and all staff working with them. Those children facing the greatest challenges in achieving this need to receive a greater level of support from all agencies in Norfolk. . The vast majority of children and young people should be in school to have equality of access to learning and social development opportunities in a peer culture. . Those with greater need should access additional or alternative support based on their school’s core offer, including access to other agencies. . For Norfolk children to be on a Norfolk school roll and schools to be the commissioners for a child’s provision with the support of Children’s Services teams. . We want attendance in Norfolk to be above the national average.
Norfolk County Council recognizes that punctual and regular school attendance is an essential precondition of social inclusion and a pre-requisite to effective learning. For a small but significant number of children poor school attendance is a direct cause of their social exclusion and underachievement. Children who are registered at a school and fail to attend that school regularly are placing themselves at greater risk of either offending or of becoming the victims of offending by others.
Norfolk County Council believes that success in achieving improved attendance will be best achieved if principles of active and meaningful partnership (with schools, parents, pupils and other agencies and services) inform all County Council activities.
In order to improve levels of school attendance and punctuality Norfolk County Council will employ five key strategies:- a) the provision of support and challenge to all schools, focusing resources on those schools with the most clearly identifiable needs; b) the provision of one-to-one support to individual pupils who experience difficulties in attending school regularly; c) the provision of consistent and equitable support to parents, ensuring, through an appropriate balance of assistance and enforcement all parents are able to meet their legal responsibilities in relation to school attendance; d) the development of effective multi-agency working practices in order to facilitate early intervention and the delivery of a seamless service; e) the development of a range of relevant performance indications and the subsequent setting of realistic yet challenging targets.
In developing this policy and practice for promoting school attendance Norfolk County Council will endeavour to ensure that the need to recognise the national context and central government priorities is balanced by the need to respond to the local context and particular priorities within Norfolk.
Since August 2004 there has been an expectation that all local authorities will have a named senior member of staff who has the strategic responsibility for attendance. This person is known as the Attendance Leader, in Norfolk this role is undertaken by the Attendance and Exclusions Manager.
The aims of Norfolk’s Attendance Strategy are to:
2
Develop a coordinated multi agency approach to improving attendance for all children including vulnerable groups. Contribute to the raising of achievement in Norfolk schools by increasing attendance. Engage with parents, children and young people to gain their views on ways to promote and secure increased school attendance. Improve well being and life chances of children and young people through their regular and punctual attendance at school. Provide appropriate support and challenge for Head teachers, Governors and parents to reinforce the importance of regular school attendance to ensure that all understand their roles and responsibilities. To ensure that interventions in relation to school attendance are robust and take into account wider aspects of the needs of the children concerned (Norfolk Safeguarding Children’s Board (NSCB), Local Safeguarding Children’s Review Panel (LSCRP) 2009). To ensure that poor school attendance is treated as a possible marker of abuse and neglect and that other agencies are engaged in efforts to deal with this. (NSCB, LSCRP 2009). To ensure that all Norfolk County Council Staff, Children’s Services staff and contributing agencies understand and fulfil their roles and responsibilities.
These aims have always been underpinned by the three cross-cutting themes that appeared in The Norfolk Children and Young People’s Plan of: Fulfilling aspirations Well supported parents and families Focus on prevention and early intervention
3) Short term outcomes Consideration of any potential changes within the workforce who have a focus on decreasing exclusions, providing for excluded children, providing alternative education and promoting high rates of attendance A plan for developing links with: . 14 – 19 area learning partnerships . Early Years providers . Specialist Resource Bases . Eaton Hall (countywide residential special school for boys with Behavioural, Emotional & Social Difficulties) . Clusters - localities Improved communication between all partners Strengthened links with the relevant teams within Children’s Services where the knowledge base resides for the national context Equity of access and provision – consistency of approach across postcodes Monitoring links with Admissions – new guidance Reviewing the Managed Moves protocol (draft completed)
4) What we currently do in Norfolk Norfolk attendance has a historical pattern of inadequate attendance at both primary and secondary phases. This is in comparison to national and statistical neighbours.
3
(The data tables that were included here have been extracted and can be seen at Appendix C od the working group’s report.)
In the past 3 years there has been a direct focus by the Government on Persistent Absence in Secondary Schools and this has further highlighted the gap between Norfolk and other Local Authorities.
The Children’s Services annual assessment demonstrated that Norfolk County Council has, despite year on year improvements over the past six years, not managed to close the gap between national data and statistical neighbours.
5) Our Aims – what we will do in Norfolk a) Strategically work will be undertaken on a half-termly basis with the identified schools to monitor their progress against their data and areas for development the school has identified for themselves b) A delivery plan for operational staff will be implemented to ensure statutory duties and expected timescales are met c) Equality in support and action occurs across the county for all parents and pupils where attendance is unsatisfactory d) Training is available for all Children’s Services staff, schools and other agencies. e) A report on progress will be prepared on both a termly and yearly basis.
This Attendance Strategy will be revised when the new Ofsted framework for the inspection of schools is produced, expected late summer/autumn 2011, for implementation in January 2012.
4 Appendix F
Best practice
1. Effective attendance practice in schools and local authorities has been developed from the experience of past Ofsted inspections. A suite of documents published during the last Government can be found at www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolattendance . These provide local authorities, schools, headteachers, teachers, governors, and other agencies with information on school attendance issues, and share examples of good practice that have been introduced by individual schools and local authorities.
2. This website currently includes a disclaimer to say that some documents may not reflect current Government policy. Nevertheless, they continue to provide a helpful reference point for proven approaches, tools and techniques that encourage good attendance, which include: Demonstrating a strong attendance ethos Having a clear policy on absence Using effective, non-bureaucratic systems for monitoring attendance Using data and other information to improve school and pupil performance Promoting the importance and legal requirements of good attendance to pupils, their parents and the wider community Rewarding and celebrating good and improved attendance Intervening early when individual pupil absence gives cause for concern Having support systems in place for vulnerable pupils Making the best use of additional support for pupils and parents with greatest need (multi-agency working)
3. Norfolk County Council’s Attendance and Exclusions Manager also reported that local authorities which have lower absence levels share some common practices to which their success could be attributed: Having a clear focus on attendance Consistent use of standard procedures and practices which all staff adhere to Enforcing tighter registration policies in schools – correct data can improve attendance levels Ensuring the robust enforcement of Penalty Notice Warnings Acting immediately when an attendance issue arises, alongside schools and other agencies.
Appendix G
ATTENDANCE TEAM
Menu of services **
1. Casework where pupil absence meets referral criteria (below 80% in 4 week period – absences unauthorised), managed mainly within Fast Track framework.
2. Advice and support with the self-evaluation tool for attendance.
3. Undertake attendance audits to identify areas for improvement.
4. Support with target setting, action planning and managing persistent absence.
5. Deliver whole-school training on managing school attendance.
6. Advice on developing and implementing an effective attendance policy.
7. Advice on implementing the necessary procedures for fast-track case management, e.g. first- day calling, involvement of governor.
8. Advice on managing punctuality and post-registration truancy.
9. Advice on managing requests for term-time holidays.
10. Advice on challenging reasons given for absence to prevent patterns of poor attendance developing, in particular where medical reasons are given.
11. Advice on supporting attendance of vulnerable groups, e.g. LAC, young carers.
12. Attendance and support at school meetings with parents of poor attenders (prior to referral).
13. Talks for new parents on importance of good school attendance.
14. Advice and support on transition work with poor attenders transferring between phases within clusters
15. Assembly talks on importance of good school attendance.
16. Organisation and support of local truancy sweeps.
17. Support in developing multi-agency work with young people with high unauthorised absence.
18. Advice and support with schools’ own initiatives for raising whole school attendance.
19. Advice on safeguarding children.
20. Advice to pupils and staff on child employment.
** This will change when the service is scaled back. Appendix H
Examples of the impact that other Children’s Services teams at NCC have on attendance
1. Absence rates for Looked After Children (LAC) have more than halved over the last five years (from 15% to under 7%), which is much better than both national and statistical neighbours. This is a result of Virtual School challenging the low expectations that teachers, governors and carers have of LAC’s attainment, as well as challenging the children themselves. Training, Personal Education Plans, personalised support programmes and celebrating good attendance have had a powerful impact on improving behaviour and attendance.
2. Traditionally, Traveller children stop going to school at 11 years old. NCC’s Traveller Education Service is challenging this traditional view. Through focussed outreach work, the service is building positive relationships with the Traveller community in Norfolk and encouraging Traveller children to attend school regularly. The Service also assists schools in supporting these pupils, for example by ensuring that the curriculum is culturally inclusive.
3. Parent Support Advisers (PSAs) provide a localised, rapid response to support whole families, which has had a positive impact on attendance levels across the county. There are currently 81 across the county – each school cluster has 1 Full Time Equivalent PSA funded through the Extended Schools budget and some clusters have funded additional PSA posts. They bring together multi-agency support for the whole family, often with family support agencies in the voluntary sector.
Appendix I
Examples of Partnership Working
1. Norfolk Youth Offending Team (a partnership of Norfolk’s services to children, criminal justice, local authorities and the private and voluntary sector) monitors the attendance of the young offenders it works with, through its Education Workers. They use the fast track method to deal with attendance problems, working closely with Attendance Improvement Officers (AIOs), Family Intervention Projects (FIPs) and Parent Support Advisers to ensure the right support and enforcement is in place.
2. FIPs work with high need families through an intensive whole family, multi-agency approach. The Norwich FIP, based within the Housing Department of Norwich City Council, co-ordinates a wide range of support and parenting programmes, often signposting family members to specialist agencies. Referrals to the FIP are not often as a result of a single issue, but attendance problems frequently form part of the picture. Attendance improves as other family issues are resolved.
3. The Safer Schools Partnership (SSP) programme has also had a positive impact on school attendance in Norfolk.1 Police Community Support Officers work within schools as part of the management team and help to bring about a problem solving approach in partnership with other agencies. While the focus is on preventing youth crime and anti- social behaviour, the partnership approach of early intervention and support has delivered improved attendance and reduced exclusion.
4. Vulnerable children in Norfolk are set to benefit from more joined up working between agencies such as the County Council, police and partners look to create a Multi-agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). The MASH, which is set to be up and running by June, will initially bring staff from Norfolk County Council and Norfolk Constabulary under one roof, sharing information and responding quickly to child protection concerns. Community Services, health services and other agencies will also be involved at a later stage to better safeguard both vulnerable children and adults. Although the Norfolk County Council and the Police already work closely together, with their partners, bringing the teams into one location will speed up communication and assessment.
1 An SSP is a formal agreement between a school or partnership of schools and police to work together in order to keep young people safe, reduce crime and the fear of crime and improve behaviour in schools and their communities. This will involve a police officer or police community support officer regularly working at a school or across a number of schools on a full time or part time basis. Report to Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 10 March 2011 Item No. 10
Scrutiny Review of the Recruitment & Retention of Head Teachers Report by the Scrutiny Working Group
Summary This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Scrutiny Working Group appointed by the Panel. The principal objectives of the scrutiny review were to :- Clearly establish the extent of the current situation relating to the recruitment and retention of head teachers in Norfolk schools. Examine Norfolk’s Strategy for the recruitment and retention of head teachers. Formulate recommendations to facilitate an improvement in the recruitment and retention of head teachers. Recommendation To consider the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Working Group.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Purpose of the Scrutiny Review The scrutiny review was commissioned by the Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel in the light of concerns raised by Members about perceived difficulties in recruiting and retaining head teachers. The perception was based on the direct knowledge and experience of some Members of difficulties faced by schools in their divisions. This was underlined by reports in both the national and local media about the problems, particularly in relation to recruitment, that schools were facing. The media reports increased concern of a crisis with significant numbers of head teachers leaving their posts and a lack of candidates putting themselves forward to replace them.
The role of the head teacher in all schools is crucial in the development and delivery of education for children and young people. Any shortfall in such leadership posts was consequently a cause of great concern for Members, parents, pupils and the general public.
The purpose of the review was to establish what the true position is in Norfolk and how it compares to the national picture. In particular to confirm:- Whether there was a greater problem in Norfolk than elsewhere.
Originated by Mick Sabec 21 January 2011 Version Final To understand what action was being taken by Children’s Services to address any problems and support schools in the retention and recruitment of head teachers. To identify any areas where Children’s Services could improve or enhance the support provided to schools on this issue.
1.2 Terms of Reference The terms of reference for the scrutiny review are attached (Appendix 1).
1.3 Membership of the Working Group The five members of the working group were drawn from Children’s Services and other Overview & Scrutiny Panels. The working group drew on existing skills and experience and on other members of the Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel who were invited to attend its meetings.
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Working Group Meetings The working group held six meetings between December 2009 and January 2011. In between these meetings members of the working group also undertook visits to schools.
2.2 Desktop Research The working group considered and analysed local and national data relating to the vacancy rates for head teachers. In addition the working group selected and tracked a small sample of vacancies for headships in Norfolk that were advertised in January 2010.
2.3 Head teacher interviews Interviews were held with three head teachers who retired at the end of the summer term 2010. Interviews were also held with three newly appointed head teachers. In scheduling the interviews the working group selected a cross section of head teachers to reflect different phases of schools and locations across the County.
2.4 Review of Children’s Services Support The support provided by Children’s Services for the recruitment and retention of head teachers was examined by the working group. The principal means of doing this was through interviews with senior officers as ‘expert witnesses’.
In addition a meeting was held with a small number of Chairmen of Governing Bodies of schools that had recently appointed a new head teacher.
2.5 Acknowledgements
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions to its work by governors, head teachers and officers (Appendix 2)
The Scrutiny Working Group’s Main Findings
3.1 Data Analysis The working group considered information and data from a range of sources. National data was drawn from the annual staffing returns compiled by the Department for Education (DFE). The raw national data was given a more meaningful context by looking at elements of the annual survey undertaken by Professor Howson. Finally, the situation in Norfolk was considered by looking at head teacher vacancies that were advertised over a two year period.
3.2 Department for Education Annual Staffing Returns A detailed analysis was undertaken of national data from the DFE which was based on an annual staffing return completed by all Local Authorities in January 2009. Although the data focused on teaching posts there were some specific areas relating to head teachers. The data was useful in identifying comparisons on a regional basis but less helpful in drilling down to individual local authorities.
The key aspects identified were:- The average vacancy rate nationally (posts unfilled for at least 1 term) was low at 0.7% of overall head teacher posts. The rate for the East of England was 0.9% within a national range of 0.2% - 1.2%. The national average vacancy rate for head teacher vacancies is consistently below 1% and the variation between years since 2005 was very slight and in a range of 0.6% to 0.8%. Equivalent figures for headships filled on a temporary basis were 2.7% nationally and 2.3% for the East of England (national range from 1.2% to 3.5%). Nationally the average figures for temporary appointments are consistently below 3% and since 2005 are in a range from 2.6% to 2.9 The national data from the latest published survey (January 2010) was in line with the data for 2009.
3.3 Professor Howson’s Report The working group looked at a summary of the results from Professor Howson’s 15th report on the state of the labour market for senior staff in schools (published November 2009) The report was reliant on data and responses provided by schools advertising vacancies. Whilst such returns were not comprehensive nevertheless the information provided by the report was helpful in identifying some key issues at a national level.
Key issues identified:- The average number of applicants for primary headships was 4.8 and 15.9 for secondary schools and represents a slight increase over the previous year. (The figures for Norfolk are 4.41 and 14.42 respectively). A significant proportion of vacancies, about a third, are the result of retirement before the age of 60 (not on health grounds). Most schools receive the majority of their applications from local candidates. Approximately 68% of primary and 58% of secondary appointments are of candidates working for the same local authority. There has not yet been a “super” year for retirements. Primary and special schools appoint substantially more women than men as head teachers. National Professional Qualification for Head teachers (NPQH) is accepted as being necessary before appointment
3.4 Norfolk head teacher vacancies The working group looked at a summary of progress in filling advertised head teacher vacancies from September 2007 to August 2009. Key issues identified Primary schools received an average of 4.41 applicants for each vacancy advertised and the figure for high schools was 14.42. Both figures are below the averages identified in the Howson report. The average number of candidates short listed was 2.82 for primary schools and is above the national average figure of 2.7 identified by Howson. The figure for high schools is 4.68 which is below the national average of 5.1 identified by Howson. Only 19.23% of primary appointments are of candidates working outside of Norfolk. This compares with 57.89% of out of county appointments made by high schools. For primary schools approximately 12% of vacancies (9 out of 78 posts) needed three or more recruitment exercises before an appointment was made. The figure for high schools was 21% (4 out of 19 posts). In Norfolk early retirements, not on health grounds, accounted for approximately 19% of vacancies at primary schools. This is well below the national figure of 32% contained in the Howson report. However, the figure for high schools was 33% which is in line with Howson’s national figure of 32%.
3.5 Tracking vacancies A sample of twelve vacancies advertised in January 2010 was selected to track progress in appointing head teachers. Progress was monitored and by July 2010 eight schools had appointed a new head teacher. Of the remaining four schools, three had appointed acting heads, one for a year and the other two schools for up to two years. One school had decided to put in place a partnership arrangement with another school.
In tracking these vacancies the working group noted that smaller schools were attracting fewer, or in some cases, no applications.
3.6 Exit interviews
Exit interviews were held with three head teachers who had taken early retirement at the end of the summer term 2010. The cases were selected from the previously agreed list of tracked vacancies. These sessions were particularly useful in enabling members of the working group to get a clear insight into the role and pressures on head teachers. Whilst the sample was small and reflected some individual views and circumstances, it did nevertheless identify a number of key issues.
The role of head teacher has changed and has become more managerial. This has meant that heads have to deal with issues beyond their areas of professional expertise. Workload was felt to be excessive in the case of a high school and a small primary. The former felt that this reduced the head’s ability to focus more on the educational aspects of the school. For the latter, a teaching head faced the burden of the management of the school with little support. A perception that there was a lack of trust from both national and local government manifested by too much monitoring. The paperwork burden was felt to be excessive and one head commented that he was unable to see any educational benefit from this. Views about the NPQH were positive. However, there was a view that the role of head teacher was not attractive to deputy heads and many were not applying for head ships even though they had obtained their NPQH. A need for more intensive training in finance and employment law. Support from the local authority in the recruitment process was considered to be of a high standard. A need for better succession planning at school and local authority level. A suggestion that more could be done to pro-actively market Norfolk as an attractive area to work. A general view that many of the candidates for headships in their schools were lacking the necessary experience and had unrealistic aspirations. A good and supportive governing body is essential. Schools with long serving heads will benefit with earlier and more detailed training for governors in the recruitment and appointment processes. Overall there is a need to attract governors of a high calibre. Suggestions were made that there should be a local/national tax break for governors and that their expenses should be met through a central local authority bursary fund. Support for schools from the local authority was valued and considered to be of a high standard. However, there was a concern that schools that were not coping did not get enough support and would benefit from early intervention. All the heads valued the support from their staff and also support provided through cluster and head teacher networks.
3.7 Post Entry Interviews Interviews were undertaken during the autumn term 2010 with three recently appointed head teachers. The head teachers came from a variety of backgrounds
and comprised of an existing head from another Norfolk school, a head appointed from an out of County school and a Deputy head teacher from a Norfolk school. As with the exit interviews the responses reflected personal circumstances and aspirations but were none the less very helpful in identifying some key factors.
The Council’s recruitment website is good and it is easy for candidates to search for vacancies. Advertisements in the national press, particularly for vacancies at individual schools, are not so good and it is difficult to find specific vacancies. There is a need to improve the overall promotion of Norfolk as a whole package as an attractive place to live and work. All the head teachers were positive about the professional manner in which the selection process was undertaken but there was a suggestion that it needed to be scaled down for smaller schools. Schools visits were stressed as crucial in enabling schools to sell the vacancies to potential candidates. The head teachers expressed a view that not enough deputy head teachers were prepared to step up to become head teachers. It was felt that some were put off by the inspection regime whereby a poor inspection result could have an adverse impact on a head teacher’s career. In addition the salary differential, particularly in the case of smaller schools, was not seen to be a sufficient incentive to take on the additional responsibility. There is a need for better progression planning and internal promotion. Whilst the NPQH was seen as essential, it should be complemented by more on the job training such as job shadowing of existing head teachers,. Overall the head teachers were satisfied with the support provided by Children’s Services. However, it was also felt that advice given by telephone should be followed up in writing. Formal training in employment law would be very useful. The induction programme was useful and in one case there was a hand over from the previous head teacher. Links with neighbouring schools and other schools in the cluster group were helpful particularly in the early days of a new head ship. Existing paper work and systems in schools were variable. A suggestion was made that each school should have a check list of all the key documents that are needed by an incoming head teacher. A strong view emerged relating to the need for more partnerships or federations in Norfolk. This would help address the problem of recruiting head teachers for small schools whilst also providing the challenge and salary incentive needed to attract high calibre candidates. The head teachers expressed their appreciation of good and supportive governing bodies.
4.0 Support Provided by Children’s Services The working group interviewed a range of senior officers responsible for providing support to schools in the recruitment and retention of head teachers. In doing so the following areas of support, guidance and assistance were identified.
4.1 Recruitment Process
Dealing with the administration of the recruitment process including the placement of adverts in local and national press. Advising and assisting schools on the content of their advertisements. Preparation of recruitment pack for applicants.
4.2 Support for Governing Bodies in the Appointment Process
Comprehensive guidance for governing bodies in the recruitment and appointment of a new head teacher is contained in the ‘Appointing a Head Teacher ‘guide. The working group agreed to endorse this document which provides a step by step guide on each of the stages within the process. Direct support is provided by a senior officer from Children’s Services during the appointment process. This includes assistance in short listing of candidates and in the selection and decision making process.
Timely support and training for governing bodies in the processes to be followed in recruiting a head teacher
4.3 Recruitment Strategy This includes a range of valuable initiatives to recruit teachers and head teachers to posts in Norfolk including attendance at recruitment fairs, the publication of brochures and supplying memory sticks promoting teaching in Norfolk.
4.4 Well being and personal support The head teacher well being support office within Children’s Services provides confidential non judgemental support to all heads. This is a key service valued by head teachers in helping them deal with stressful situations within their working life. Early intervention through well being helps heads manage problems before they escalate.
4.5 Succession Planning The Norfolk School Leadership Succession Planning Strategy focuses on leadership across the whole school workforce and contains the following key elements;- A talent pool for succession planning which identifies potential candidates for headships from within the current work force. A programme of leadership succession planning to help equip candidates for headship that will include elements such as employment law. A partnership with Suffolk to develop teachers within the 2 counties for leadership and headship roles. Internships and secondments to give potential head teachers valuable experience prior to applying for permanent headships.
4.6 Professional support Senior officers within Children’s Services Education Advisory Service provide direct professional support to head teachers. Each school has a School Improvement Partner (SIP). Children’s Services promote alternative models of leadership such as school partnerships whereby a single head manages 2-3 schools. These are particularly useful for smaller schools but have also been successful across high and primary phases. This aspect was also raised in discussions with newly appointed head teachers and was one which the working group felt needed to be explored in more detail. Support for governors in considering succession planning before a head teacher decided to leave. Support and guidance for governors and head teachers in budget management through a traffic light finance matrix. Support for governors in undertaking and implementing succession planning for the benefit of the overall community of schools in Norfolk.
4.7 Schools’ Perspective of Support The working group met with the chairmen of the governing bodies of some schools that had recently recruited a new head teacher. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain their views of the processes and support around the recruitment and retention of head teachers. During this meeting the following key points were made. The appointment processes and professional advice and support provided by Children’s Services were sound and were valued by the schools. However, it was felt that the support was not always responsive in meeting urgent needs arising, for example, when there is an unexpected resignation by a recently appointed head teacher. It was noted that options for leadership including partnership were explored by the local authority at the outset of the appointment process. An earlier strategic approach, before a vacancy occurs, would be welcome particularly in promoting and developing partnership arrangements across the school cluster. Schools experienced mixed success in attracting out of county candidates through national advertisements. One school successfully developed its own strategy in producing an appointment pack and in preparing and placing advertisements. Governing bodies would welcome assistance in supporting newly appointed head teachers during induction and during the early weeks and months of an appointment. It was felt that it would be helpful for governors with recent experience of appointing a head teacher to join the interview panels of other schools going through that process. The leadership academy was seen as being valuable in providing a useful pool of candidates for potential appointment and for comparative purposes.
5.0 Conclusions In considering its recommendations the working group recognised whilst there are many positive aspects of head teacher recruitment and retention in Norfolk, there is still a need to make improvements to assist those schools that are experiencing difficulties. In looking at small schools the working group felt further work should be undertaken to examine how existing partnerships could be made more effective and, to consider the feasibility of increasing the number of federations or partnerships between schools. It was noted that a review of small schools in Norfolk was underway and that a report on this work was expected in the summer.
The promotion of Norfolk as a good place to work and live should be developed further to attract more high calibre candidates for headships. For example, this could include the inclusion of a ‘Teach in Norfolk’ section within the “come to Norfolk” offer promoted by the Council’s Economic Development Team.
The evidence gathered by the working group does not indicate that there is a crisis in the recruitment and retention of head teachers. This is borne out by an analysis of the national and local data and the overall success rate in recruiting head teachers for Norfolk schools. The working group felt that valuable support was provided by Children’s Services for schools in the retention and recruitment of head teachers
Behind the headline evidence there are undoubtedly a small number of schools, particularly smaller schools, that have experienced significant difficulties in recruiting a head teacher. This is reflected by the need for such schools to advertise on more than 2 occasions and to make temporary arrangements to cover vacancies. Any ongoing head teacher vacancy is a cause for concern because of the potentially detrimental impact this will have on the education of children and young people in the County. The working group noted that rural nature of Norfolk and a large number of small schools contributes to this problem.
6.0 Recommendations
The working group has agreed the following recommendations;
6.1 To endorse the ‘Appointment of a Head Teacher’ guidance document. 6.2 Further guidance and training should be provided for head teachers in employment law and processes. 6.3 Children’s Services should develop and publicise further strategies and programmes to ensure that succession planning for head teachers takes place across all schools 6.4 Enhance the induction and post employment training available for head teachers and the chairmen of governing bodies on financial management 6.5 Improve and enhance the recruitment profile of Norfolk to attract more high calibre candidates for head teacher vacancies.
6.6 Children’s Services to develop training for governors to help governing bodies plan and review strategic visions for schools and clusters. 6.7 In the light of and following the report on the small schools review, the Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to consider commissioning a future scrutiny review to examine the extension and development of partnership and federation arrangements for Norfolk schools.
7. Other Implications
7.1 Equality Impact Assessment This report is not directly relevant to equality, in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups.
7.2 Impact on Children & Young People The purpose of the review has been to consider the recruitment and retention of head teachers in Norfolk. Whilst the scrutiny review in itself does not have an impact on children and young people, the implementation of its recommendations will have a beneficial impact.
8. Section 17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998 The Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. The direct implications have been considered and the impact on crime and disorder is not judged to be significant in this instance. 9. Action Required The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is requested to consider the working group’s findings and endorse the implementation of its recommendations.
Officer Contact Mick Sabec (01603) 223499 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011(Textphone) and we will do our best to help
Appendix 1
Scrutiny: Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference for Scrutiny Recruitment & Retention of Head Teachers
Scrutiny by a Working Group of the Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel Membership of the working group Tony Adams Jenny Chamberlin Diana Clarke John Rogers Paul Wells Officer Support Tim Newton Mick Sabec Reasons for Scrutiny: Concerns were raised by Members regarding difficulties, in some cases, in recruiting head teachers for Norfolk schools and a perception that there was also an issue in retaining existing head teachers. Effective school leadership is a very significant factor in the quality of education for children and young people. Continuity of school leadership is therefore an issue which Members consider to be of great importance. Purpose and objectives of the study: 1. To clearly establish the extent of the current situation relating to the recruitment and retention of head teachers in Norfolk schools. 2. Examine Norfolk’s Strategy for the recruitment and retention of head teachers 3. To formulate recommendations to facilitate an improvement in the recruitment and retention of head teachers.
Issues and questions to be addressed: 1. Establish the current position in Norfolk through a detailed analysis of vacancy rates and duration of vacancies 2. What are the reasons for head teachers leaving headships in Norfolk schools 3. Is the recruitment and retention of head teachers more of a significant issue in Norfolk than nationally/regionally or in comparative local authorities? 4. What impact do head teacher vacancies have on the education for children and young people in Norfolk 5. What steps can the Council take to improve the recruitment and retention of head teachers within the context of local and national strategies?
Initial Outcome: Prepare practical recommendations to implement improvements in a co-ordinated and structured manner to improve the recruitment and retention of head teachers in Norfolk.
Deadlines and timetable:
Research and practical work to be undertaken during the spring and summer terms 2010 Brief progress report to each meeting of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel Final Report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel in autumn 2010
Terms of Reference agreed by Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel:
Date: 14 January 2010
Terms of Reference agreed by the Overview & Scrutiny Strategy Group:
Date: 4 January 2010
Appendix 2 Acknowledgements The working group greatly appreciate the assistance provided by the following colleagues who gave their valuable time and expertise to help with the scrutiny review: Richard Moore Former head teacher Fakenham High School David Darrell Chair of Governors, Fakenham High school Chris Clements Former head teacher, Blofield Primary School Bill Peasley Former head teacher, St Michael’s First School , Gillingham Barbara Kaul Chair of Governors, St Michael’s First School , Gillingham Theresa Clifft Head teacher, Northrepps Primary School Richard Chamberlain Executive head teacher: - Tilney St Lawrence; Terrington St John; Walpole Highway Primary Schools. Paul Madsen Head teacher, Thomas Bullock Primary School, Shipdham Carolyn Lawrence Chair of Governors, Thomas Bullock Primary School, Shipdham Wendy Cleary Chair of Governors , Avenues Junior School, Norwich Chris Wallace Chair of Governors, Flegg, High School Alex Robinson Chair of Governors, Millfield Primary School, North Walsham Martin Dutton Chair of Governors, Alderman Peel High School. Wells Peter Harwood Governor at:- St William's Primary, Thorpe; Dussindale Primary; Sewell Park College Bridget Carrington School’s Forum Representative, Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel Lucinda Poliakof Parent Governor Representative, Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel Sue Cook Co-opted Advisor for Primary Education, Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel Martin Sale Co-opted Advisor for Norfolk Governors Network, Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel Cllr. Richard Bearman Member of Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel David Orsborne Children’s Services John Seaward Children’s Services Peter Simmonds Children’s Services Steve Hardy Children’s Services Sue Platt Children’s Services Mike Simm Children’s Services Rita Mills Recruitment Team, HR Shared Services
Report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 10 March 2011 Item No. 11
Service and Budget Planning 2011-14 Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary Full Council agreed the County Council’s Budget for 2011-14 on 14 February 2011. We have received the final Local Government Settlement for 2011-12, confirming our planning assumptions to be broadly accurate. This report provides Panel Members with an update on the revenue budget and capital programme for Children’s Services agreed by Full Council.
The report also sets out draft service objectives for Children’s Services (including the Youth Offending Team) for consideration by Panel Members, and are a key element in developing service plans to deliver the County Council Plan for 2011-14.
Actions required: To comment on the proposed service objectives To note the revenue budget and capital programme for Children’s Services for 2011- 14.
1. Background
1.1 At its meeting in January, the Panel considered a detailed report setting out the financial and planning context for Children’s Services for the next 3 years. The report included: Financial and planning assumptions agreed by Cabinet in September to inform the Council’s budget proposals An updated budget position for Children’s Services, based on the local government settlement published in early December A detailed list of costs and pressures facing Children’s Services A detailed list of proposals for savings A summary of the results of the Big Conversation consultation, including public and stakeholder feedback on the savings proposals.
1.2 The minutes from the Panel discussion were included in the report that subsequently went to Cabinet setting out the proposed budget. Full Council agreed the budget on 14 February.
1.3 The purpose of this report is to provide the Panel with: The budget for Children’s Services (including the Youth Offending Team) for 2011-14 A list of draft service objectives, which will demonstrate how savings will be delivered.
2. Final 2011-12 Local Government Finance Settlement
2.1 The provisional grant settlement reported to Panel in January has now been finalised and the final grant settlement results in a small increase in funding for Norfolk. Formula grant has increased by £27,000 to £256.933m in 2011-12 and by £78,000 to £239.796m in 2012-13. In addition district councils have provided final district council tax figures, which increase the income from council tax for 2011-12 by £72,000. The net budget requirement for 2011-12 is £603.349m. There are no changes to this service arising from the final 2011- 12 Local Government Finance Settlement, but we are able to provide further detail on some specific grants announcement relevant to this Panel’s service area: Norfolk's settlement has seen the cessation or transfer into formula or core grants of all Area Based Grants and most specific grants. Eighteen non-frontline schools education services grants have been discontinued. The current value of these grants is £8 million. Two grants supporting music and extended rights for free travel are still under review. The new Early Intervention Grant has been formed by the merging of twenty two separate grant streams. This grant is to support early intervention and preventative services. Key areas of intervention which the government has highlighted are free early education for disadvantaged two year olds; short breaks for disabled children; Sure Start Children's Centres; targeted support for vulnerable young people including the Connexions service; targeted mental health in schools and targeted support for families with multiple problems. Norfolk's allocation is £29.351 million in 2011-12 and £31.164 million in 2012-13.
With the exception of funding transferring into devolved Dedicated Schools Grant, all grant funding is now unringfenced.
3. Revenue Budget for Children’s Services
3.1 County Council approved a 2011/12 Children’s Services budget of £153.995 million. The budget for key services in Children’s Services will be reported to the next Overview and Scrutiny Panel. This report will provide details on the allocation of the Early Intervention Grant.
3.2 The level of savings for Children’s Services is set out in Appendix A. Actions to deliver these savings in each of the 3 years will be included in the departmental service plan, which is now being developed. The savings for the Youth Offending Team are estimated to be £458k (£153k in each of the first two years and £152k in the final year).
3.3 The Youth Justice Board has confirmed that the central funding pot for YOTs, which makes up 30% of the funding for teams, has yet to be decided. The budgets for key services in the Youth Offending Team directorate are set out below:
Revenue Amount Partner funding – Children’s Services £694,626 Partner funding – Health £123,770 Partner funding – Police *£176,814 Partner funding – Probation *£125,696 Youth Justice Board Grant – Effective Practice *£544,289
Youth Justice Board Grant – Intensive Supervision and *£170,334 Surveillance Youth Justice Board Grant – Prevention *£302,109 Youth Justice Board Grant – Substance Misuse *£104,033 Youth Justice Board Grant – Integrated Resettlement *£48,950 Support Early Intervention Grant *£325,000 Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Partnership *£39,518 Crime Disorder Reduction Partnership *£48,750 Sub-total £2,703,889 Use of Small Commissioning Fund £149,780 Partners ‘in-kind’ Contribution Seconded staff – Children’s *£297,856 Services Partners ‘in-kind’ Contribution Seconded staff – Health £106,993 Partners ‘in-kind’ Contribution Seconded staff – Police £116,296 Partners ‘in-kind’ Contribution Seconded staff - Probation £101,245 Total £3,476,059
Please note those items marked with an asterisk have not been finalised and are based on the best intelligence received to date and is likely to change.
3.4 The level of savings for Children’s Services is set out in Appendix A. Actions to deliver these savings in each of the 3 years will be included in the departmental service plan, which is now being developed. The savings for the Youth Offending Team are estimated to be £458k (£153k in each of the first two years and £152k in the final year).
4. Capital Programme
4.1 At the January meeting of the Panel, detail was provided of the £29.9m capital grant allocation to Norfolk from the Department for Education for 2011/12 based on assessed Basic Need (pupil number growth) and urgent school condition needs. The grant is not ring-fenced.
Capital Priorities Group had an opportunity at its meeting on February 4th to review pressures and priorities for capital expenditure, in line with the broad indications of need set out in the January Panel report. The specific ‘named’ pressures and priorities it reviewed to form the basis of a possible new starts programme were (with indicative costs shown where known): Cringleford (new Voluntary Aided Primary) – commitment of £4.4m and coverage of £2.13m for future site receipts Permanent solutions at three year junior schools to support reorganisation possible cost up to £10m Site for proposed new site for replacement Chapel Road school, Attleborough Basic Need pressures at: o Rackheath Primary - £1.4m o Lt Plumstead Primary - £1.5m o Costessey Infant o Buxton Primary o Wymondham Area - to support developer contribution o Norwich City Centre Primaries o Downham Market High.
4.2.1 In addition consideration was given to block programmes to cover:
Temporary classroom moves (linked to emerging Basic Need or urgent condition); Improvements/adaptations to premises/equipment for children with Special educational needs in mainstream schools Carbon reduction schemes School kitchens Urgent condition needs
4.2.2 The Group also confirmed a number of earlier risks from the current year’s programme which would need to be covered from 2011/12 funds if the risks could not be mitigated, including possible claw-back by Government of Primary Capital Programme funding.
4.2.3 The Group asked that detailed information be provided at its April meeting to develop a programme on this basis, which it would then pass to the Panel for consideration in May (although some elements such as mobile classroom moves and pupil-related adaptations would need to be committed before then for implementation by the September term.)
4.2.4 On this basis, the Group noted how even just the absolute priority needs could aggregate into a significant programme of work:
Type of Need Scheme Value Commitments Cringleford £4.4m Basic Need priorities Little £1.5m Plumstead Rackheath £1.4m Three year juniors £10m Block programmes £4.125m Condition (lease £0.3m obligations)
Total £21.725m
The current ‘worst case scenario’ risks on the programme are as follows:
Scheme Value Cringleford receipt risk £2.13m
Other risks (including up to £4m £5.246m PCP clawback)
Total £7.376m
A further report on the development of a programme will be made to the Panel in May.
4.2.5 Currently there is no capital available for YOT in 2011-14.
5. Service Planning Objectives 2011-14
5.1 The Cabinet recommended to Full Council that the following three strategic ambitions should continue to underpin all County Council activities. Namely to make Norfolk: An inspirational place with a clear sense of identity A vibrant, strong and sustainable economy A county with aspirational people with high levels of achievement and skills.
And that going forward the council’s role should be focussed on:
Speaking up for Norfolk – providing strategic leadership and influence sufficient to ensure that Norfolk’s voice is heard wherever people are taking decisions that are critical to its future economic prosperity, investment, health and well-being. Assessing people’s needs and commissioning efficient, responsive and cost effective services to meet them Supporting, developing and maintaining the infrastructure that helps our economy Being a safety net for the most vulnerable people in our county and protecting the public Signposting people to the services they need and providing good quality information to help people choose services relevant to them Helping and enabling others to build and maintain strong, sustainable and caring communities, giving back community ownership of locally important priorities best tackled through local community action.
5.2 In the context of this new core role for the County Council and the financial and service planning context considered by the Panel in January, the following service objectives are being proposed for Children’s Services for the next three years:
Supporting parents Supporting Early Years Services Supporting good educational outcomes Safeguarding the vulnerable Supporting disabled children, children with additional needs and young carers Being a good and prudent parent to the children and young people in our care Developing capacity in communities.
It will be important to strive to keep the balance between prevention, early intervention and intervention and to continue to develop a strong and integrated system with our partners – especially schools, colleges, voluntary sector providers, the police, health organisations and adult social care.
5.2.1 In the context of this new core role for the County Council and the financial and service planning context considered by the Panel in January, the following service objectives are being proposed for Norfolk Youth Offending Team for the next three years:
Reduce the Rate of Re-Offending During 2009/10 the re-offending rate was reduced by 14.4%, which was either in line with or better than all comparator groups. So far during 2010/11 the rate has increased by 11% over the first 2 quarters, but this is not necessarily indicative of an end of year increase. We are waiting for the final figures which come from the Police National Computer. Reduce the number of First Time Entrants (FTE) into the Youth Justice System During 2009/10 the number of FTE was reduced by 31.5%, significantly better than all comparator groups. So far during 2010/11, from April to December 2010 it has reduced by a further 8.7%. Reduce the use of Custodial Sentences in the Youth Justice System During 2009/10 the custody rate was 4.8%, which was broadly in line with comparator groups. From April to December 2010, the custody rate has fallen to 4.3%, performance in the October to December 2010 quarter was 3.3%.
NYOT will also measure outcomes against a broad range of local indicators. These will focus on the main risk factors that can contribute to offending in young people namely, substance misuse, lack of education, training & employment, remands into custody, poor parenting and restorative justice. In addition NYOT will monitor the quality of practice against National Standards and case managements guidance, which will be detailed within the Service Plan for 2011 – 14.
5.3 The wording, but not the meaning, of the above objectives in paragraph 5.2 and 5.2.1 may be subject to change as the service plans for 2011/12 are developed.
5.4 Norfolk’s Big Conversation will continue as services are re-designed to ensure that service users, stakeholders, and the wider public can have their say. Consultation will be continuing with key stakeholders as the services are redesigned.
6. Resource Implications
6.1 The implications to resources including, financial, staff, property and IT were set out in the “Council Plan and 2011-14 Budget” – Report to Cabinet, 24 January 2011.
7. Other Implications
7.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA):
The report to Cabinet on the County Council Plan and Budget for 2011-14 set out the Council’s duties when making recommendations about the Budget to give due regard in relation to disability, gender and race, and the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity, including the need for Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs). The report included a summary of the findings of the EqIAs, which potentially have an impact on these groups. Where individual EqIAs identify potential adverse impacts, they also propose potential mitigating actions. The full EqIAs for individual proposals have been published on the County Council’s website. Equality and community relations considerations are also an element of the Single Impact Assessment completed for all departmental service plans and that identifies any mitigating actions required.
7.2 Impact on Children and Young People
These proposals are aimed to ensure resources are focussed on the highest priority needs of children and young people in Norfolk thus ensuring services are as efficient and effective as possible.
7.3 Any Other Implications
Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
8. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
8.1 Potential implications for crime and disorder arising from budget proposals have been reported to and considered by Overview and Scrutiny Panels in January. Community Safety is one of the elements of the Single Impact Assessment completed for all departmental service plans and identifies any mitigating actions required.
9. Risk Implications/Assessment
9.1 Risks relating to budget proposals were reported to the Panel in January. Actions to mitigate the risks associated with the delivery of savings and potential adverse impact on equalities will be included in service plans.
10. Action Required
10.1 To comment on the proposed service objectives.
10.2 To note the revenue budget and capital programme for Children’s Services for 2011-14.
Background Papers
“Service and Financial Planning 2011-14 – Report by Leader of the County Council” – Report to Cabinet, 24 January 2011 “Council Plan and 2011-14 Budget” – Report to Cabinet, 24 January 2011
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Officer Name Tel No Email address Katherine Attwell 01603 638002 [email protected] Paul Fisher 01603 223464 [email protected]
If you need this Agenda in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A Children’s Services Savings: 2011-14
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 £000 £000 £000 Big Conversation savings B2 Reduction in staff as a result of a smaller capital budget for -681 -169 -169 building projects B3 Reduce subsidy for Home to School/College Transport for 0 -1,000 0 those aged 16 and over B4 End subsidy for denominational transport; end funding of -232 -199 -39 transport in exceptional circumstances and make savings through further efficiencies B6 Redesign and reshape special education support services; 0 -1,990 0 so that fewer statements of special education needs are required B7 Reduce the scale and capacity of the school attendance -363 -220 -17 service B8 Reduce the scale and capacity of improvement and -867 -867 -867 intervention services for schools B9 Redesign and reshape the service that helps plan the supply -84 -60 -60 of school places B10 Reduce local authority contribution to the schools music -128 -45 -55 service and performing arts service and outdoor education service B11 End of local authority funded youth services -3,848 -733 0 B13 End local authority contribution to study support community -377 -11 -11 learning projects B14& Reduced and redesigned management and support -1990 -828 -550 B19 arrangements as a consequence of service redesigns B15 Procurement savings on placements for Looked After -3,283 -4,175 730 Children B16 Reduce the scale and capacity of services to support looked -2,791 5 -1,589 after children B17 Smarter more efficient processes for conducting child death -52 -48 -50 reviews and the work of the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board B18 Reduce the scale and capacity of family support services -2,294 -561 -1743 B20 Discontinue provision of clothing grants -41 0 0
Other savings Building Schools for the Future – end of programme -1,560 0 0 Reduced staffing requirements for responsibilities -250 0 0 transferred from the Learning and Skills Council Reduction in services as a result of withdrawal of Area -1,675 0 0 Based Grant funding, including choice advisers, support for implementation of national strategies in schools and school improvement partners Reduction in the County Council’s partnership contribution -203 -153 -153 to the Youth Justice Service Savings on school staff early retirement and redundancy -520 -520 -520 costs Reduced contribution to school sports facilities -76 -76 -76 No inflation allocation for existing school early retirement -115 -115 -115 costs End of local provision of student awards -198 0 0 Home to School/College Transport – reduced inflation in -1,380 0 0 2010/11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 £000 £000 £000 Home to School/College Transport – procurement/efficiency -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 savings Discontinue local authority contribution to flexible 14-19 -129 0 0 Partnerships Former Children’s Fund expenditure -200 0 0 Organisational Review – full year effect of Phase 1 -81 0 0
Total -24,447 -13,648 -7,256
Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel 10 March 2011 Item no. 12
Children’s Services Integrated Performance and Finance Monitoring Draft report for 2010-2011
Report by Director of Children’s Services
Summary
This report provides an update on performance and finance monitoring information for the 2010-2011 financial years. This report monitors progress against the Corporate Objectives set out in the County Council Plan that are covered by the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel. The first section covers key performance information, and the second financial performance.
The report also sets out the variations between the approved budget for 2010/11 and the actual spending during the year. The paper comments on the Children’s Services Revenue Budget, Capital Budget, School Balances and Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions.
The main financial points within the paper are:
The Children’s Services revenue budget shows a £1.179 million or 0.7% projected overspend for the year. The report highlights a significant budget overspend on Looked After Children agency costs and Public Law Outline costs, which are partly offset by a number of savings on other budgets. The Schools Budget variations are contained within the approved contingency fund. The level of projected school balances at 31 March 2011 is £21.817 million. The level of projected balances and provisions at 31 March 2011 is £6.358 million.
Recommendation Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report.
1. Performance update 1.1 Performance indicators Please see Appendix A for the latest performance results. The exceptions that require further explanation are: 1.1.1 Social Care Performance 1.1.2 The number of social care referrals to children’s services continues to increase in Norfolk. There have been almost 6000 referrals of children referrals of children in need since April 2010, with around 4300 going onto initial assessment.
1.1.3 Since April 1700 initial assessments or 40% have been completed within the ten day timescale. The number of core assessments undertaken has reduced since November. Norfolk’s performance for these processes remains below those of our statistical neighbours and national performance and whilst the interim report on the review of child protection by Munro sets out that data must show a child’s journey as opposed to compliance to timeliness and prescription, the Children’s Services Performance Board has analysed this performance and the action plans to improve performance.
1.1.4 The number of Looked-After Children has risen by over 6% since April 2010 to over 950 at the end of January 2011 and the impact of this rise is that the performance of reviews for Looked-After Children has fallen primarily due to the increased volumes of reviews required, with 66% reviewed within the year, compared over 90% nationally and over 85% among Norfolk’s statistical neighbours.
1.2 School Performance 1.2.1 There are currently 10 schools under Notice to Improve across Norfolk – 7 Primary & 3 Secondary, with 6 schools in Special Measures – all Primary / Junior. Following inspections since December 2010, one school, Tilney All Saints CE VC Primary School (Spellowfields Ward), has come out of Notice to Improve since January, and is now rated Satisfactory by Ofsted.
Latest figures published by Ofsted show that inspection results in Norfolk have improved since August 2010 in the following education settings: Early Years and Childcare; Nursery & Primary Schools; Secondary Schools; Local Authority- maintained Sixth Forms and Children’s Homes.
1.2.2 English Baccalaureate results for Norfolk students’ attainment in 2010 have recently been published by the Department for Education. The Baccalaureate requires pupils to have achieved GCSE A*-C in English, Maths, double Science, History or Geography and a Modern or Ancient Foreign Language. Despite several head-teachers’ concerns that the results were published before schools had a chance to adjust their curriculum to meet the new requirements, Norfolk ranked 60th out of 149 Local Authorities in this measure, the highest ranking of all school performance indicators for Norfolk in 2010.
1.3 Additional Needs
1.3.1 The percentage of final statements of Special Educational Need issued within timescales (within 26 weeks) whilst below target has maintained consistent performance throughout the year.
1.3.2 The rate of permanent exclusions at secondary schools increased at the start of the academic year (September 2010) in November there were 19 secondary school pupils with a permanent exclusion, there are currently 11.
2. Revenue – Local Authority Budget
The 2010/11 Children’s Services revenue budget is £169.445 million. There is no Local Authority funding of schools as they are funded completely by the Dedicated Schools Grant.
This year end monitoring report shows a projected £1.179 million or 0.7% revenue budget overspend for the year.
The following summary table shows by type of budget, the actual spend for the year. The table shows the variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget.
Revenue – Local Authority Budget
Division of service Approved Forecast Forecast Forecast Variance budget Outturn +Over/- +Over/Underspend in £m £m Underspend as % of budget forecast £m since last report £m Budget Increases Looked After 50.381 55.411 +5.030 +10 0.132 Children LAC Adoptions 3.047 3.247 +0.200 +7 LAC transport 0.670 1.050 +0.380 +57 -0.200 LAC Legal costs 2.621 4.521 +1.900 +72 0.200 Field Study Centre 0.000 0.100 +0.100 n/a additional running costs Unfunded Sep 20- n/a n/a +0.080 n/a 09 Soulbury pay award Spending Reductions Staff 64.703 63.833-0.870 - -0.100 School Pension 5.680 5.530 -0.150 -3 -0.650 /Redundancy costs Building Schools 2.000 -0.155 -2.155 -108 for the Future Home to School/ 26.794 25.443 -1.381 -5 College Transport Recovery plan n/a n/a -1.089 n/a Grant Income n/a n/a -0.795 n/a -0.395
Other Savings n/a n/a -0.71 n/a
Total 1.179 -1.013
3. Revenue – Schools Budget
The Dedicated Schools Grant funds the Schools Budget. The Schools Budget has two main elements, the amounts delegated to schools and the amounts held centrally for pupil related spending. The amount delegated to schools includes a contingency which is allocated to schools for specific purposes.
The Dedicated Schools Grant can only be used for specified purposes and must be accounted for separately to the other Children’s Services spending and funding.
Variations on Dedicated Schools Grant Funded Budgets The variations are presented in the same way variations within the budget for Local Authority services are being reported. The following summary table therefore shows for budgets with an in year variances, the actual spend for the year. The table shows the variance from the approved budget both in terms of a cash sum and as a percentage of the approved budget. The table also shows movements in the variations since the last report.
Revenue – Schools Budget
Division of service Approved Forecast Forecast Forecast Variance budget Outturn +Over/- +Over/ in forecast £m £m Underspend Underspend since last £m as % of report budget £m Non-maintained 9.557 11.757 +2.200 +23 0.200 School Placements Suspended school 0.269 0.589 +0.320 +119 0.180 staff costs School staff 0.176 0.576 +0.400 +227 redeployment costs School staff maternity 1.773 1.393 -0.380 -8 0.240 costs School supply special 0.266 0.166 -0.100 -38 0.060 circumstances Early Years 4.749 4.299 -0.450 -9 -0.450 additional hours Sensory Support 1.520 1.420 -0.100 -7 -0.100 Service Advanced Skilled 0.458 0.308 -0.150 -33 -0.150 Teachers (ASTs) Dedicated Schools 435.861 434.867 -0.994 n/a Grant Schools Contingency 1.032 0.016 -1.016 -98 0.020 Fund
Total 0 0
4. Monitoring of budget investment decisions
The County Council Plan 2010/11 update includes two key target investments within the Achievement objective to improve educational attainment and help children and young people achieve their ambitions.
The first relates to the Children’s services capital programme which in 2010/11 stands at £73 million. As set out in paragraph 6 below as a result of tight control and monitoring, available resources are being spent on agreed priorities.
The second key investment was the £0.440 million revenue to support the BSF submission. This investment was subsequently increased to £1 million, however as Norfolk’s admission into the programme is later than originally anticipated the level of revenue investment is likely to be £0.292 million in 2009/10. The balance of £0.708 million will be transferred to the BSF Reserve Fund to be used in 2010/11.
5. Capital Programme
2010/11 Future Years £M £M Approved Budget 72.949 128.040 Forecast Outturn 72.275 128.043 Variation from Approved Budget (0.674) 0.003
The 2010/11 approved capital budget contained £114.465 million of estimated payments in 2010/11. The approved budget has decreased by £41.516 million to £72.949 million since initially being approved. This is due to a reduction of £8.286 million government grants and reprofiling £33.230 million of funding to future years.
The projected 2010/11 outturn based on the latest monitoring information is £72.275 million; an underspend of £0.674 million.
All funding has been committed to individual schemes and programmes of work.
The reasons for the variance is analysed in the following table.
Capital Programme - Variances
Scheme or Approved Forecast Slippage Reasons programme of 2010-11 2010-11 since the work capital capital previous budget outturn report £m £m Norfolk Schools 2.377 2.415 0.045 A small overspend is Project due to increased project costs St Michaels 0.122 0.116 -0.006 Savings on project Bowthorpe - High costs growth TCF - Sewell 0.304 0.066 -0.238 Savings on project Park High costs TCF - Churchill 0.401 0.352 -0.049 Savings on project Park costs Costessey High - 0.770 0.619 -0.151 Savings on project High Growth costs Costessey Infant 0.118 0.015 -0.103 Savings on project - High Growth costs Costessey Junior 0.129 0.128 -0.001 Savings on project - High Growth costs South Harford 1.615 1.444 -0.171 Savings on project Pupil Referral unit costs
Total -0.674
6. School Balances
The Scheme for Financing Schools in Norfolk sets out the local framework within which delegated financial management is undertaken. In respect of budget plans the expectation is that schools submit budget plans: at the end of the Summer term, taking account in particular the actual level of balances held at the end of the previous financial year; at the end of the Autumn term, taking account in particular of staff and pupil on roll changes; and if necessary, during the Spring term.
Based on budget information provided by schools the original projection of balances and revised forecast of balances at 31 March 2011 is as follows:
School Balances as at 31 March 2011
Title/description Original Revised Variance Reason for forecast forecast £m variance balance at balance at 31-03-10 31-03-11 £m £m Nursery 0.087 0.100 0.013 Underspend of annual budget Primary 10.161 13.014 2.853 Underspend of annual budget Secondary 5.072 5.730 0.658 Underspend of annual budget Special 0.836 1.189 0.353 Underspend of annual budget Partnerships 2.351 1.784 -0.567 Partnership use of balances
Total 18.507 21.817 3.310
7. Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions
A number of Reserves and Provisions exist within Children’s Services. The following table sets out the balances on the reserve and provision in the Children’s Services accounts at 1 April 2010 and the balances at 31 March 2011.
The table has been divided between those reserves and provisions relating to Schools and those that are General Children’s Services reserves and provisions.
Children’s Services Reserves and Provisions
Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 31-03-10 balance at £m £m 31-03-11 £m Schools Transport Days 0.295 0.151 -0.144 Reduced number of Equalisation Fund home to school/college transport days in the 2010/11 financial year as a result of the timing of Easter. Schools 1.426 0.410 -1.016 Part of the School Contingency Budget and used to fund Fund Dedicated Schools Grant variances Schools Non- 0.270 0.270 0.000 Additional school Teaching contributions to the Activities reserve Building 0.389 0.750 0.361 Used for large school Maintenance building and engineering Partnership Pool maintenance projects
School Sickness 1.225 1.225 0.000 Schools use of fund Insurance Scheme School Playing 0.240 0.270 0.030 Additional annual school surface sinking contributions to the fund reserve Education 0.031 0.031 0.000 Frozen holiday pay Provision for entitlement paid to Holiday Pay former Education staff now employed by Norse Ltd on their retirement. Non BMPP 1.062 1.060 -0.002 Schools use of the Building reserve Maintenance Fund
Title/description Balance at Forecast Variance Reason for variance 31-03-10 balance at £m £m 31-03-11 £m Provision for 4.464 0.000 -4.464 Use of school provision Modern Reward for MRS compensation Strategy payments Norfolk PFI 9.596 1.945 -7.651 Accounting adjustment Sinking Fund BSF Reserve 0.708 0.000 -0.708 Building Schools for the Fund Future saving transferred to revenue accounts
Schools total 19.706 6.112 -13.594
Children’s Services IT Earmarked 0.116 0.120 0.004 Use of the reserve to Reserves support IT projects within Children’s Services Repairs and 0.266 0.146 -0.120 Use of fund to replace Renewals Fund assets
Children’s 0.382 0.266 -0.116 Services total
Total 20.088 6.378 -13.710
8. Other Implications
8.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
There are no specific implications. The scope of the CAA includes an assessment of the impact in tackling inequalities including the way in which we are working in partnership to meet the needs of diverse groups.
8.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
Measuring performance against the service plan actions and the national indicators is used to monitor progress against the service plans objectives and measure the impact for the children and young people’s plan 2009-2010. The financial changes outlined in this report are designed to minimise the impact on children and young people and maximise the allocation of resources to priority areas.
8.3 Any Other implications
Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
There are no specific implications. The inspection framework includes an assessment of how well Children’s Services is working with partners to achieve share priorities including reviewing how it is delivering safer and stronger communities for Norfolk.
10. Risk Implications / Assessment
Risks to improving performance are contained within the Children’s Services risk register. These continue to be monitored and reported on.
11. Action Required
Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel is asked to note and comment on the information contained in this report and consider whether any aspects should be identified for further scrutiny.
Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Paul Fisher tel:01603 223464 [email protected] Katherine Attwell tel:01603 638002 [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (Textphone) and we will do our best to help.
Appendix A - Performance Monitoring
Key: On target or better ; Below target but within 5% variance ; More than 5% below target
Performance indicator Plain English description of Previous year- Current in year Year-end Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) indicator as agreed with end result performance target performance based on year members and published on (financial year (month) end target (not profiled) policy and performance web end unless page otherwise stated) NI 59 % of initial assessments The percentage of initial 56.5% 43.8% 85.0% completed within 10 working assessments completed within 10 Performance has improved days of referral) working days of referral. (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 since last month although below average = 75.7%) target.
NI 60 % of core assessments The percentage of core 66.5% 58.7% 85.0% completed within 35 working assessments (in depth assessments Performance remains below last days of their commencement addressing the most (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 year’s statistical neighbour and important aspects of a child's needs) average = 75.2%) national averages carried out within 35 working days of the initial assessment end. NI 62 % of LAC with 3 or more The percentage of looked after 8.6% 9.5% 9.0% placements during the year children with three or more placements during the year. (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 average = 10.1%) NI 63 % of LAC under 16 looked Percentage of children looked after 71.9% 70.1% 75.0% after for 2.5+ living in same for more than 2.5 years living placement for 2+ years or are continuously in the same placement (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 placed for adoption for at least 2 years. average = 64.2%)
NI 64 % of children who ceased The percentage of children ceasing 2.0% 1.3% 1.3% to be the subject of a CP Plan in to be the subject of a Child the last 12 months who had been Protection Plan, who had been the (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 the subject of a CP Plan for 2+ subject of a Child Protection Plan average = 5.4%) years. continuously for two years or longer. Performance indicator Plain English description of Previous year- Current in year Year-end Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) indicator as agreed with end result performance target performance based on year members and published on (financial year (month) end target (not profiled) policy and performance web end unless page otherwise stated) NI 65 Percentage of children The percentage of children 15.5% 18.6% 14.0% becoming the subject of Child becoming subject to a Child Improvements have been made Protection Plan for a second or Protection Plan who had previously (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 over the year subsequent time been the subject of a Plan, or on the average = 14.2%) Child Protection Register, no matter how long ago that was. NI 66 Looked after children The percentage of looked after 74.3% 66.1% 98% cases which were reviewed children whose cases should have Performance fell primarily due to within required timescales been reviewed which were reviewed (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 – the increased volumes of within the required timescales. average = 86.7%) to be reviewed reviews required NI 67 Percentage of child The percentage of children with a 99.0% 100% 100.0% protection cases which were Child Protection Plan whose case reviewed within required was reviewed within required (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 timescales timescales. average = 97.0%) NI 68 Percentage of referrals to The percentage of children referred 48.4% 68.8% 70.0% children’s social care going on to to social services (i.e. a request is initial assessment made for services to be provided) (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 - whose case goes on to initial average = 81.1%) to be reviewed assessment NI 76 Reduction in number of The number of schools in the local 35 35 20 schools where fewer than 55% of education authority where the While the number remains off- pupils achieve level 4 or above in percentage of pupils achieving level (Statistical neighbour Provisional Year End target at 35, this equates to both English and Maths at KS2 4 or above in both English and average 13.9%) Results 10/11 9.5% of Norfolk primary schools, Maths at Key Stage 2 (aged 11) is compared to 13.9% of primary less than 55%. schools among Norfolk’s Statistical Neighbours NI 84 Achievement of 2 or more The percentage of pupils achieving 2 48.8% 52.0% 53.0% A*- C grades in Science GCSEs or more A*-C grades in Science or equivalent GCSEs or equivalent at Key Stage 4 (Statistical neighbour Provisional Year End (aged 16). average 56.5%) Results 10/11 Performance indicator Plain English description of Previous year- Current in year Year-end Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) indicator as agreed with end result performance target performance based on year members and published on (financial year (month) end target (not profiled) policy and performance web end unless page otherwise stated) NI 85a Post-16 participation in The number of entries for pupils 256 317 290 physical sciences (A Level aged 16-18 for A Level Physics. Physics) Entries for pupils are counted Provisional Year End Target 10/11 regardless of whether they go on to Results 10/11 take the exam. NI 85b Post-16 participation in The number of entries for pupils 322 436 375 physical sciences (A Level aged 16-18 for A Level Chemistry. Chemistry) Entries for pupils are counted Provisional Year End Target 10/11 regardless of whether they go on to Results 10/11 take the exam. NI 85c Post-16 participation in The number of entries for pupils 482 686 615 physical sciences (A Level aged 16-18 for A Level Maths. Maths) Entries for pupils are counted Provisional Year End Target 10/11 regardless of whether they go on to Results 10/11 take the exam. NI 86 Secondary schools judged The percentage of secondary 64.0% 63.5% 73.5% as having good or outstanding schools graded 1 (outstanding) or 2 standards of behaviour (good) for standards of behaviour by (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 This figure has remained Ofsted inspection. Schools' average = 84.1%) cosntant since summer 2010 behaviour standards can be graded from 1 outstanding) to 4 (inadequate). NI 87 Secondary school The percentage of secondary pupils 5.7% 4.5% 5.9% persistent absence rate missing 20% or more of the school year. Statistical Neighbour Provisional Year End Target 10/11 average = 4.3%) Results 10/11 NI 89(a) No. of schools in special The number of schools in special 3 6 3 measures measures at the end of the summer term, and the average number of Year end 10/11 January 2011 Target 11/12 This figure has been affected by months spent by schools in special a new Ofsted inspection regime measures. with revised criteria making it more difficult for schools to As this measure is recorded over the attain a Satisfactory or better Academic Year, current performance grading. Performance indicator Plain English description of Previous year- Current in year Year-end Performance alert for (National Indicators - NI) indicator as agreed with end result performance target performance based on year members and published on (financial year (month) end target (not profiled) policy and performance web end unless page otherwise stated) NI 89(b) Average time (months) is vs. the 2011/12 target. 21.3 19 18 in special measures of schools ceasing to be in special Year end 10/11 January 2011 Target 11/12 measures in the academic year.
NI 90 Take up of 14-19 learning The number of active Diploma 226 1180 878 diplomas Aggregation Service accounts where the centre of learning is recorded as (Statistical neighbour Year End 10/11 being within the local authority. average = 128.1) NI 103(a) % of Final Statements This indicator is made up of two 78.5% 78.0% 98.0% issued within 26 weeks excluding parts: exceptions (financial year to - the percentage of final statements Year end 09/10 January 2011 Target 10/11 date) of Special Educational Need issued Neighbour within 26 weeks excluding exception comparator cases information is not yet - the percentage of final statements available NI 103(b) % of Final Statements of Special Educational need issued 69.0% 73.3% 85.0% issued within 26 weeks (financial within 26 weeks including exception Year end 09/10 year to date) cases Neighbour January 2011 Target 10/11 comparator information is not yet available NI 114 Rate of permanent The percentage of pupils who are 0.093% 0.1% 0.08% Performance has decreased exclusions from school permanently excluded from school slightly. This represents a during the academic year. (Statistical neighbour January 2011 Target 11/12 very low number of pupils. average 0.1%) One or two pupils could Year end 10/11 figure have a major impact on of 0.087 from August percentage figures. 2010 as calculated on Academic Year.
Children’s Services O & S Panel 10 March 2011 Item No. 13
Admission Arrangements for September 2012
Report by Director of Children's Services
Summary
This report summarises responses to the statutory annual admission consultation.
It proposes no changes to the co-ordination schemes following the significant new duty to co-ordinate in-year admissions introduced last year. It also reports on proposed local changes to arrangements for admissions to Community and Voluntary Controlled schools for September 2012.
Whilst there have again been few responses, there is a high level of support for all proposals except the proposed change in the Dereham area relating to feeder schools.
The Admissions Forum will consider the responses and specifically consider the Dereham proposal and their recommendations will be reported to the Panel.
Action Required
The Review Panel is asked to consider and comment on the recommendations prior to this report being presented to Cabinet for approval on 4 April 2011.
Background
Each year the Local Authority is required to consult on the admissions co- ordination scheme for all Norfolk schools and admission arrangements for Community and Voluntary Controlled schools.
Through a School management Information sheet all Headteachers and Chairs of Governing bodies were invited to respond. Schools were asked to promote the consultation with parents via newsletters or other local communication channels. Additionally, to promote wider consultation with the community the Local Authority followed DfE guidance and published a notice in the local press inviting wider participation in the consultation. The consultation was also placed on the County Council’s website and highlighted in the “Current Consultations” section.
There have been 34 responses this year (consultation closed on 1 March 2011).
Chair of Headteachers Parents Other Governors All responses 1 21 8 4 (at 15/2/11)
The proposals will be considered in detail by the Norfolk Admissions Forum on 4 March 2011 and their comments will be tabled at the meeting.
After consultation the Local Authority is required to determine its arrangements and to confirm the co-ordination scheme that will apply for admission during the 2012/13 school year, by 15 April 2011.
Consultation Issues
1. Proposed admission round co-ordination schemes for September 2012
The proposed Admission Round Co-ordination scheme for managing admissions to Reception classes, transfers to Junior schools and transfers to Secondary schools in September 2012 is unchanged from the 2011/12 scheme. The schemes follow the model described in the statutory School Admissions Code 2010 and have been in operation for admissions to all maintained primary and secondary schools in Norfolk since September 2004.
90% of responses (28/31) received support the proposal for co-ordination of transfer rounds (Question 1)
Recommended that the proposed Co-ordination schemes are confirmed for September 2012.
2. Proposed timetables for September 2012 admission rounds
No changes are proposed for the 2012 admission rounds. Closing dates and the secondary school offer date is fixed by legislation. The primary school offer date is not fixed by legislation but 20 April 2012 is considered to be the earliest practical date to have completed the process as Local Authorities must continue to share data with other authorities on potential offers until 31 March 2012. 92% of responses (26/28) received support the proposal for the co-ordination timetables
Recommended that the proposed In-year co-ordination timetables are confirmed for September 2012.
3. In-year co-ordination
From September 2010 all in-year applications from families living or moving to Norfolk must be co-ordinated by the Local Authority. The current scheme will operate until the end of 2011/12. The scheme appears to be working effectively so no changes are proposed to the in-year co-ordination scheme for the school year 2012/13.
85% of responses (24/28) received support the proposal for the co-ordination timetables.
Recommended that the proposed in-year co-ordination scheme is confirmed for the school year 2012/13.
4. Managed Moves
The current Local Authority managed move scheme deals with pupils at the point of permanent exclusion and ensures appropriate placements are identified and ensures equity between schools.
The consultation proposes amendments to the existing protocol to include: a. extending the existing managed move protocol to include primary schools as well as secondary schools b. Shifting the focus so that managed moves are used as a positive intervention before a child reaches the point of permanent exclusion c. Ensuring that the revised scheme emphasises the need to ensure that risk assessments are positively managed as a key part of the pupil’s transfer to an alternative educational establishment The proposed changes also remind schools that “Supported transfers” between 2 schools are no longer possible without Local Authority co-ordination. Following the legal duty on the Local Authority to co-ordinate all in-year admissions such transfers must now be managed as “In-year” admission requests rather than being brokered locally.
77% of responses received (21/27) support the proposal for the co-ordination timetables.
Recommended that the proposed amendments to the managed move scheme are confirmed for 2012/13 and that further details regarding the proposals are developed in consultation with schools during 2011/12.
5. Catchment area change – West Raynham area
An area around West Raynham Airfield has recently been identified as not being in the catchment area for it’s nearest school – West Raynham C of E VC Primary School. Instead, it is in the catchment area of Blenheim Park Primary School in Tattersett some 6 miles away. This was agreed to reflect the connection between both communities when they were active RAF stations. This is no longer appropriate and local families currently attend West Raynham Primary. It is therefore proposed that this area be served by West Raynham Primary school. 95% of responses received (22/23) support this proposal.
Recommended that the West Raynham Airfield area be re-designated in the catchment area of West Raynham C of E VC Primary School.
6. Dereham area – feeder school changes
Catchment area changes were made in 2011/12 so that both Dereham High Schools, Neatherd and Northgate now serve the combined catchment area for the two schools. The change for 2011/12 retained separate feeder schools for each high school.
As a request for a further review a revised proposal was included in the consultation for September 2012. The consultation proposal was that all the primary schools in the combined catchment area should be designated as feeder schools for both high schools recognising that there are significant transfers to both schools from most feeder schools.
Although 91% of responses received (22/24) support this proposal the governors at Northgate High School have advised through the consultation that they are strongly opposed to this change. As they are the only school in the local area directly affected by the proposals to have replied to the consultation their response is very significant. Their concern regarding the proposal is that families living in the rural area around Dereham and attending more distant feeder schools from Dereham town will be less likely to gain a place if this change is made. An analysis of previous rounds indicates that this would be the likely outcome.
The view of Neatherd High School is actively being sought and both schools will be invited to send a representative to the Admissions Forum meeting on 4 March so that the issue can be fully considered.
Recommended that the Panel consider the response from the Admission Forum before confirming the recommendation is confirmed regarding this proposal.
7. Resource Implications
7.1 There are no additional resource implications from the attached report.
7.2 Legal Implications: The report recommends changes to admission arrangements following the statutory annual admission consultation. It proposes admission arrangements in accordance with the duties prescribed by the statutory School Admissions Code 2010.
8. Other Implications
8.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
The legal framework within which admissions is managed seeks to ensure that admissions are fair and do not discriminate against any applicant. The arrangements are considered to fully meet legal requirements as described in the School Admissions Code 2010 and the 2009 School Admission Appeals Code.
8.2 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk
By maintaining existing admission arrangements families should continue to experience a familiar and predictable process minimising the potential difficulties for pupils associated with school transfer. The recently introduced in-year arrangements ensure that all parents are being dealt with consistently and informed of their right of appeal if they are refused a place.
8.3 Any Other Implications
Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account.
9. Section 17 - Crime and Disorder Act 1998
The Act requires Local Authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. Co-ordination of in-year admissions helps to ensure that the Local Authority has an overall knowledge of all movements of pupils between schools which will significantly reduce the chance of a pupil missing education.
10. Action Required
The Review Panel is asked to consider and comment on the recommendations prior to this report being presented to Cabinet for approval.
Background documents
2012/13 Admissions consultation document: http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Childrens_services/Schools/School_admissions/Norfolk_admi ssion_arrangements/index.htm
DfE School Admissions Code 2010 and Admission Appeals Code 2009, www.dcsf.gov.uk/sacode
Current Admission Arrangements: www.norfolk.gov.uk/admissions
Officer contact: Richard Snowden (01603) 223489 Email: [email protected]
If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help. Report to Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel 10th March 2011 Item No. 14
Review of former school sites
Report by the Director of Children’s Services
Summary
There has been an agreed process in place for the review and reuse of school sites no longer needed as a result of school reorganisation and the capital programmes from 2005- 11. Reports have been presented to Overview and Scrutiny Panel at key points of the review.
The last report was in May 2010 at which progress on five sites was reported and advice sought as to the way forward for these.
We are now in a position to bring the review of all the remaining sites to a conclusion. The proposal in this report, which is to dispose of all the remaining sites, reflects not only the current financial climate but also our view that all reuse options have been realistically explored.
The report proposes disposal of the sites listed in Annex 1 in accordance with schemes which are under development for each site
In financial terms we are also clearer now about the level of capital receipt required to support the budget of the Norwich reorganisation schemes and the Norfolk Schools Project. With all schemes complete and most accounts fully settled, the residual sum required is £1.674m for Norwich reorganisation and, for the Norfolk Schools Project, £500k of the originally budgeted sum of £1.4m. Property Reference Panel agreed on 7th February to these allocations being made from the disposals.
Recommendation:
Panel is asked to comment on the issues in this report and the intended recommendation to Cabinet on April 4th 2011 that:
(a) the sites listed in this report be disposed of as described;
(b) capital receipts of £1.674m (Norwich reorganisation and other schemes) and £500k (Norfolk Schools Project) be made available to Children’s Services to support the programme budgets
1. Background
1.1 In May 2004 Cabinet decided, in respect of the Norwich reorganisation schemes, that the Director of Education should ‘seek alternative uses for any vacant accommodation or sites resulting from the review that will help meet the goals of the County Council and where there are no suitable alternative uses, to be looking at the sale of the site as a means of contributing to the costs of the overall school review.’
CS OSP report – school sites March 10th 2011 Chris Hey Final
1.2 In March 2005 Cabinet determined the funding profile of the Norfolk Schools project (reorganisation of schools in Great Yarmouth area and market towns); this decision incorporated an agreement to apportion site receipts of £1.4m as part of the funding package from sites to be disposed of.
1.3 Based on these decisions, a process was agreed and put in place for the review and reuse of sites no longer needed as schools as a result of school reorganisation and the capital programmes from 2005-11. This process was reviewed at key points by Cabinet Scrutiny and Children’s Services’ Scrutiny exercises, with a particular focus on how local communities were consulted. The findings of these further shaped the review process. Reports have been presented to Overview and Scrutiny Panel at key points of the review. The last report was in May 2010 at which progress on five sites was reported and advice sought as to the way forward for these.
1.4 The capital projects within these programmes are now complete. A number of sites have been reused or approved for disposal. There remain a number of sites where a decision on the future has not formally been taken. This report proposes that Cabinet be asked to approve the disposal of all remaining sites with an allocation of receipts to the associated capital programmes.
1.5 A full list of sites and the present position is at Annex 1.
2. The current context of review
2.1 A number of considerations have come into play over the past year:
The financial climate for the County Council and its partners has become less conducive to re-use opportunities and more demanding of the need for capital receipts; Fewer public or voluntary organisations will now have the funding or the confidence in future funding to take sites on; we have concluded that in the case of all the outstanding sites there will be no further new, sustainable interest from these sectors; The ‘school reorganisation’ capital projects have been completed and the majority brought to final account stage; thus the need for specific capital receipt sums is clearer. There is greater public sensitivity to the County Council spending scarce resources on widespread consultation; this was carried out at earlier stages to establish whether there was community or other interest in the sites. This can be scaled back to providing information on local developments rather than continuing a process of proactive engagement on reuse opportunities.
2.2 In the light of these factors, and the need to bring the review to some form of conclusion, with certainty for local communities, the following way forward is proposed:
All remaining former school sites no longer be considered for further reuse options but be disposed of on the open market; All former school sites now to pass from Children’s Services to the corporate property portfolio for disposal;
CS OSP report – school sites March 10th 2011 Chris Hey Final
The previous consultation process be streamlined into a more focussed information-giving process, so that local County Councillors, residents and other interested parties are kept informed of developments This revised approach, which is in effect a way of concluding the review exercise started in 2007, be referred to Cabinet on 4th April for a final decision on the disposal of the sites
3. Resource Implications
3.1 Finance
The Capital Priorities Group has monitored the financial implications of the school site review at each of its meetings. Thereby it has ensured that the County Council is not exposed to a financial risk by over-committing likely levels of receipt for the sites. The residual receipt requirement is a total of £2.174m. This is made up of £1.674m for Norwich reorganisation projects and about £500k for the Norfolk Schools Project. Property Reference Panel has agreed that these levels of receipt will be made available from site disposals: anything above that level of income will be returned to the corporate capital pot.
3.2 Property:
There are no further implications than those set out in the body of this report.
4. Other implications
4.1 Legal Implications:
A number of the sites are in joint ownership and in two cases a third party has a claim of part of the value of the site. Legal advice will be taken on the necessary arrangements to ensure equitable disposal between the parties.
4.2 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
An Equality Impact assessment is not required.
4.3 Impact on Children and Young People
The capital projects undertaken within the 2005-11 capital programmes have been of benefit to children and young people; some of the reuse schemes have supported children and young people’s activities.
4.4 Any Other Implications
Officers have considered all the implications of which Members should be aware. Apart from those listed in the report (above) there are no other implications to take into account.
CS OSP report – school sites March 10th 2011 Chris Hey Final
5. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act
The continued retention of sites does bring with it a security risk for local communities and thus disposal will mitigate that risk. New owners will take on and develop the sites. Until sites are disposed of, the County Council will continue with its current security measures appropriate to each site.
6. Action Required
Panel is asked to comment on the issues in this report and the intended recommendation to Cabinet on April 4th 2011 that:
(a) the sites listed in this report be disposed of as described;
(b) capital receipts of £1.674m (Norwich reorganisation and other schemes) and £500k (Norfolk Schools Project) be made available to Children’s Services to support the programme budgets.
Background papers
Overview and Scrutiny Panel reports: 13 March 2007 5 September 2007 7 November 2007 16 January 2008 19 March 2008 19 November 2008 11 March 2009 15 July 2009 20 May 2010
Cabinet reports 5 May 2009
Officer Contact
If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with:
Chris Hey Tel No: 01603 223467 [email protected] Jo Ashford Tel No 01603 222246 [email protected] David Russell Tel No: 01603 223401 [email protected]
If you need this Agenda in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help.
CS OSP report – school sites March 10th 2011 Chris Hey Final
Annex 1
LIST OF SITES
Norfolk Schools Project
Waveney First School, Belton: in interim use for the Compass Centre as part of Additional Needs Strategy ; to be reviewed in 2012, on conclusion of Additional Needs review
Castle Acre First – school site owned by Diocese of Norwich; playground a joint asset with Holkham Estate, being prepared for disposal
Martham First School – part owned by Diocese of Norwich, being prepared jointly for disposal
Seething and Mundham – NCC owned, for disposal
Hamonds, former sixth form centre, Swaffham - part owned by County Council, part held leasehold. NCC element being prepared for disposal, lease expires on the rest on 31st August 2011
Necton First School – part ownership of site with local trustees; legal matters being dealt with prior to disposal
Norwich reorganisation
Blackdale Middle – sold
Dowson/Mile Cross – sold and social housing scheme developed
Avenue First – reused for local pre-school and Junior school extended school activities
Lakenham First – sub-leased to Norwich Steiner School
South Harford – reused for Pupil Referral Unit
Woodside – reused with Government colocation grant for community hub
Bowthorpe (YC centre) - reused with Government colocation grant for community hub
Aylsham Road – sale being prepared
Sewell Park College (east site - part) – disposal scheme prepared, local residents currently being informed
Wellesley First – scheme for health centre on part of site remains preferred option but is now lower priority for the Primary Care Trust; only realistic option is housing on the remainder of the site.
CS OSP report – school sites March 10th 2011 Chris Hey Final
Single school schemes
St Michael’s, South Lynn – sale to Borough Council for community centre in progress
Alderman Jackson, King’s Lynn – proposal for part reuse by playgroup did not proceed. Now considered for disposal; local community association to be consulted on likely scheme prior to decision
Peterhouse, Gorleston – scheme for disposal for housing being developed with Borough Council
CS OSP report – school sites March 10th 2011 Chris Hey Final