Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ms T Keywood-Wainwright, Mrs S Ransome.

Apologies were also received from Mrs P J Barnett, Parent Governor Representative.

The Chief Executive reported that, under Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, Councillor M A Whittington had been appointed to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to replace Councillor S M Tweedale until further notice.  Councillor C E D Mair had also been appointed to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to replace Councillor Mrs S Ransome for this meeting only.

There were no declarations of interest at this point in the meeting.

RESOLVED

            That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2016 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to it being noted that Church Representative Mr S Rudman and Parent Governor Representative Mrs P J Barnett were in attendance at the meeting, and the minutes being amended to reflect this, as well as the correction of a number of typographical amendments.

(To receive a report by Charlotte Gray, Team Manager Children's Commissioning, which provides the Committee with an opportunity to consider the final service model and commissioning route for children's health services in scope of the review prior to consideration by the Executive on 1 November 2016)

Consideration was given to a report which invited the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to comment on the children's health services model and commissioning plan which was due to be considered by the Executive on 1 November 2016

Expenditure on these services in 2016/17 was £13,998,367. 

The current contractual arrangement with Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust (LCHS) for Children's Health Services was due to cease on 31 March 2017 with an option to extend to 31 March 2018.  The review of children's health services would support the Council to find savings of £350k in 2017/18 and a further £350k in 2018/19.

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         The Committee was advised that a letter from the Lincolnshire Medical Committee (LMC) had been received which highlighted a number of concerns about the proposed reduction in the role of the school nurses.  These concerns were addressed by officers, and it was reported that a letter from the Executive Director for Children's Services had been sent in response to a similar letter from the LMC, but that this letter would also be responded to.

·         Concerns were raised about what support would be available for schools to help young people suffering from anxiety.  It was reported that there would be an Emotional Wellbeing Service which would focus on upskilling and supporting schools to support pupils with emotional needs.  In addition to the new service it was noted that there was already support around anxiety provided for schools through the CAMHS contract, which also included an advice line, as well as an online service called Kooth.  More information would also be available to young people online through apps.  Members were advised that CAMHS had attended every Head teacher briefing to clarify the offer around emotional wellbeing and all head teachers had also been provided with a toolkit around emotional wellbeing.  It was commented that Head teachers had been very positive about the support schools had received. 

·         There were concerns about young people not having private access to online services.  However, members were advised that a large number of young people already accessed the online counselling service, Kooth, particularly during school lunch breaks.  This included access by young people on free school meals.  It was highlighted that young people wanted instant access to services and anecdotal evidence suggested that visiting a school nurse was not anonymous enough and it felt too visible using this service in school.

·         It was queried how many additional health visitors would be required and if school nurses would be redeployed.  Officers reported that there would potentially be a need for an additional 20 health visitors as the engagement with professionals and service users indicated that there should be a greater focus on the early years.  It was hoped that school nurses could be redeployed into other areas which were being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

(To receive a report by Martin Smith, Children's Services Manager – School Standards, which provides the Committee with a summary of the key proposals in the consultation document 'Schools that work for everyone' (Published by the Department for Education (DfE) 12 September 2016))

Consideration was given to a report which summarised the key proposals in the consultation document 'Schools that work for everyone' (Published by the Department for Education (DfE) 12 September 2016) and included a proposed response to the consultation for the Committee to consider and comment upon.  It was reported that the consultation would close on 12 December 2016.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the draft consultation response contained in the report, and some of the comments made included the following:

·         It was queried how 'families just managing' were defined.  Members were advised that this query had been included in the consultation response, as officers also required clarification on this, as the government was silent on how these families would be identified.  It was suggested that the IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index) measure should be used.

·         In terms of 'good school places' it was queried how 'good schools' would be defined – would this be defined by Ofsted, family satisfaction, academic excellence or those which offered career opportunities.  It was commented that if it referred to those schools defined as 'good' by Ofsted, then there was a need to have confidence in the people making those decisions.

·         In relation to question 13, it was queried what measures could be used to demonstrate to the government that more funding was required for pupils with SEND.  Officers advised that this issue had been included in the response, and asked what the policy around SEND would be as it did not feature in the consultation document.

·         It was queried what the costs to local authorities would be, for example, if grammar schools wanted to expand, how would that cost be met.  Members were advised that if a school was expanding due to there not being enough places in an area then the expansion would be funded by the local authority as it would receive a sufficiency grant.  If it was the school's choice to expand, the capital costs would be covered by the government.  However, the local authority would still be responsible for costs such as school transport.

·         In relation to admissions policies, it was noted that any new schools would be free schools, and therefore the local authority would have no role in the administering of that policy, other than to ensure that it was lawful.

·         The response recognised the contribution that non-selective schools made to the education landscape in Lincolnshire, and it was queried whether this message could be strengthened further.

·         It was commented that this consultation document was damaging to non-selective schools.

·         There was support for the idea of asking universities to work in partnership with schools, and it was suggested whether there could be some sort of local bursary scheme.

·         Concerns were raised that if more free schools opened, there could be a surplus of places.

·         It was commented that the 11 plus was a system that was highly damaging and unfair way of assessing children,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

(To receive a report by Tara Jones, Service Manager Regulated Services, which provides the Committee with an update on the work of the Corporate Parenting Panel)

Councillor D Brailsford, Chairman of the Corporate Parenting Panel updated the Committee on the work of the Panel.

It was reported that the Corporate Parenting Panel last met on 8 September 2016 and received a report from Barnardo's about the Leaving Care Service.   It was reported that there were now 37 care leavers in Staying Put arrangements.  It was clarified that a staying put arrangement was where a young person who had been living in foster care remained in the former foster home after the age of 18.  Staying Put arrangements provided a huge number of benefits to care leavers such as transition to adulthood within a supportive family environment and improved opportunities for education, employment or training.

However, concerns were raised by Panel members about the education of young people in custody and that in some prisons education was withdrawn from over 18's as a punishment for bad behaviour.  The Panel felt that officers and members should challenge this practice by some of the prisons as access to education was essential.

The Panel also received an update on the assessment and progress outcomes for Looked After Children for 2015.  This data was currently unvalidated and the final outcomes would be known around February next year. For Key Stage 4, 51 Looked After Children were entered for GCSE's of which 9 were predicted to A-C grades in English and maths.  According to the unvalidated data, 7 achieved an A-C grade in English and maths, which was broadly in line with the prediction.

Members were informed that the next meeting was on 15 December 2016 when the Panel would be receiving the Annual Report for Looked After Children, the Annual report and Statement of Purpose for Private Fostering, and a review report of the Corporate Parenting Strategy.

The Committee was provided with an opportunity to ask questions to Councillor Brailsford and the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was queried what insurance was in place for members who visited Looked After Children in residential homes, if there should be an incident.  Members were advised that officers would check this.

·         Concerns were raised regarding foster carers who gave up due to not getting support at the right time.  It was reported that there were foster carers on the Panel, and one of them had been on the verge of giving up, but spoke to someone and received the support she needed, and carried on fostering.

·         It was noted that Councillors J D Hough and D Brailsford had met with John Harris in relation to the stability of placements.  There was a need to listen to what the foster carers said and to engage with them.

·         In relation to the issue of education being withdrawn in some prisons, it was felt that this was fundamentally wrong as it was likely that a lack of education was the reason young people were in prison.  It was queried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

(To receive a report from Mary Meredith, Children's Services Manager Inclusion, which updates the Committee on the progress of the Inclusive Lincolnshire Strategy, including plans for the Lincolnshire Teaching and Learning Centre (LTLC) and the mobilisation of the Behaviour Outreach Support Service)

Consideration was given to a report which updated the Committee on the progress of the Inclusive Lincolnshire Strategy, including plans for the Lincolnshire Teaching and Learning Centre (LTLC) and the mobilisation of the Behaviour Outreach Support Service provided by Family Action.

Nicci Marzec, Assistant Director Services and Innovation – Family Action was in attendance at the meeting to inform the Committee about the work of the Behaviour Outreach Support Service (BOSS).  She reported that the BOSS was provided by Family Action and the service had commenced at the beginning of September 2016 to work directly with teachers, pupils and families, where appropriate.  The service operated in a fully integrated way within the Ladder and also alongside the Lincolnshire Teaching and Learning Centre (LTLC) to support the effective transition of pupils in and out of centres.

Members were advised that staff within the BOSS service had been recruited from a broad range of professional backgrounds to ensure a mix of skills within the teams across the county.  In addition to the main service, Family Action had also contracted Restorative Solutions CIC to deliver a restorative practice (RP) pilot across 23 identified schools to determine whether the use of RP reduced exclusions.  'Restorative champions' within each of the identified schools would attend a full three day training programme during September and October  after which it was intended that the schools, supported by Restorative Solutions CIC would implement a whole school approach to the to the use of restorative approached.  It was reported that this would be evaluated at the end of the year with a view to rolling out across the county.

It was reported that the figures in the report were the latest exclusion data, but it was always one year behind.  It was noted that there was not an issue in Lincolnshire with fixed term exclusions. 

Members were advised that following the implementation of the Inclusive Lincolnshire Strategy, the number of exclusions from primary schools had reduced from 16 last year in term 1, to just one this year.  It was reported that there was now a ladder of intervention, and there was an understanding that head teachers had to follow every step on the ladder before making the decision to permanently exclude a child.  It was commented that there was now more focus on prevention, and it was a different way of looking at behavioural issues.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was queried what sort of behaviour would lead to a pupil being excluded.  Members were advised that the most common reason for exclusion was constant misconduct.   Since the introduction of the ladder, it was noted that any exclusions this term would be due to major misconduct e.g. assault.   All exclusions due to possession of banned items had stopped.

·         It was noted that bad behaviour often started in reception  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

(To receive a report from Gavin Booth, Children's Services Manager – Education Strategy, which enables the Committee to consider an update relating to the Sector-Led approach to School Improvement)

The Committee received a report which enabled members to consider an update relating to the Sector Led approach to school improvement.  Members commented that the report was very positive.  It was reported that collaboration was encouraged wherever possible.

Members were advised that on the morning of the meeting, officers had been notified of a school which had started a partnership with other schools.  Capacity was gradually being built, and it was noted that so far 295 staff had attended the head teacher briefings.

It was reported that there had been a shift towards seeing the local authority as a partner, and the promotion of sector led improvement would be continued.  Some good practice was being shared within clusters, and this needed to be shared amongst all schools.

It was suggested that officers come back to the Committee in November 2016 or January 2017, to provide a further update and also invite a couple of head teachers who could share their experiences so far.

RESOLVED

1.    That the update be noted.

2.    That officers return to the Committee in November 2016/January 2017 to provide a further update and invite some head teachers to attend to share their experiences of the sector led approach to school improvement.

(To receive a report by Amy Allcock, Senior Commissioning Officer, which invites the Committee to consider a report on the Open Select List for Children's Services Placements prior to it being considered by the Executive Councillor responsible for Children's Services on 31 October 2016)

Consideration was given to a report which invited the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to comment on the proposal for the Open Select List for Children's Services Placements which was due to be considered by the Executive Councillor responsible for Children's Services on 31 October 2016.

Members of the Committee were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised included the following:

·         Concerns were raised regarding whether there was a risk that providers would 'cherry pick' which placements they would accept and how this could be avoided.  Members were advised that this was unlikely as there would be a mini competition held for each placement with suitable providers on the Open Select List invited to provide a quote for the placement.

·         It was queried how long the contracts would last for, and members were advised that the Open Select List would last for five years and would be opened periodically to allow for new providers to be added and current providers to be removed if they wished to.  The length of each contract would vary depending on how long the child needed the placement for, and would be down to a decision by the social worker.  The Open Select List methodology would be revisited at the end of the five years.  It was noted that this was to create a framework for what was already in existence.

·         Concerns were raised about the emphasis on seeking value for money for the placements rather than on meeting the needs of the child.  It was reported that the social worker would make a decision around the needs of the child but there was also a need to ensure that the Council received the best price for the placement in line with the needs of the child.  It was highlighted that for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children and Intense Needs Supported Accommodation the placement list was very narrow and officers wanted to expand the list to improve value for money for those placements.

·         Concerns were also raised about the budget for the placements and whether it was likely to stay the same or be reduced in the future.  Members were advised that the Council had a statutory duty and if there was a child or young person who needed to be placed then the budget for that placement would be found.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee unanimously supports the recommendations to the Executive Councillor responsible for Children's Services as set out in the report.

2.    That the comments noted above be passed to the Executive Councillor responsible for Children's Services in relation to this item.

(To receive a report from Tracy Johnson, Senior Scrutiny Officer, which enables the Committee to consider its own work programme for the coming year)

Consideration was given to a report which enabled the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to consider its own work programme for the coming year.

The Committee was reminded that a budget workshop would be taking place following the next meeting in November 2016,

It was also noted that a further update on the Sector Led approach to School Improvement would be brought to the meeting in November or January, and that some head teachers would be invited to share their experiences.

RESOLVED

1.    That the content of the work programme as set out in appendix A of the report be agreed.

2.    That the above additions be noted.