Agenda item

(To receive a report by Sally Savage, Chief Commissioning Officer, which provides key performance information for Quarter 2 2016/17 that is relevant to the work of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee.  Please note that Appendix D to this report contains exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and discussion of this information could result in the exclusion of the press and public)

 Consideration was given to a report which provided key performance information for Quarter 2 2016/17 that was relevant to the work of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee.

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:

·         It was queried whether there was a pattern emerging in relation to those children who were not achieving.  It was noted that indicators in relation to 'Young People not in education, employment or training' and 'Pupils aged 16-18 participating in learning' were mirror images of each other and there was a correlation between the two.  These indicators would need to be closely monitored, and for this particular data set there was always a data lag in quarter 2, and officers would not make any assumptions based on September's data.

·         It was noted that approximately £1m had been taken out of the careers guidance budget, so the impact of this needed to be monitored.

·         'Achievement gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers at key stage 4' – officers were aware than much of this data related to academies, but it was something that was high up on head teachers agendas, as they were judged by Ofsted on it.

·         An emotional wellbeing service was also in development, as many of those that did not achieve were also in need of emotional support.

·         A more focused approach had been taken this year in challenging those academies where the gap was biggest, and the local authority was referring them to the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) when performance did not improve.

·         In relation to whether there was a correlation between those children who did not achieve and those who were not in education, employment or training, it was noted that young people did not always go onto their right pathway and so could drop out part way through a course.  It was commented that it was a concern that schools were not always ensuring that children were on the best programme for them.

·         It was suggested that some schools with sixth forms were desperate to hold onto young people, whether it was the right pathway or not.

·         For secondary schools which were causing concern there was a protocol between the local authority and academies, and officers were working on a protocol between the local authority and the RSC.

·         In terms of complaints received, it was queried whether there was a downward trend in complaints.  It was noted that these were only the complaints that the local authority had received in relation to schools, but there would probably be many more which had gone directly to the schools.

·         'Average time taken to move a child from care to an adoptive family' and 'Average time taken to match a child to an adoptive family' – it was commented that it was positive that these were both ahead of target.  It was noted that these two measures ran concurrently.  It was queried whether the target could be reduced down any further.  Members were advised that Lincolnshire was an outstanding authority for adoption and it was suggested whether the Committee would like to receive a report on the journey of a child in the adoption process.  It was also added that the report could focus on permanence as well rather than just adoption. 

·         It was queried whether there was anything that members could do as a committee to further challenge the gap.  Members were advised that it was not an engagement issue as academies were very open with the authority.  It was more about how locality support could be used to support children.

·         The pressure was on schools to narrow the achievement gap.  They were reporting that they were doing all they could, and it was commented that it would be interesting to carry out research in some of the most disadvantaged communities, as there was a need to better understand what disadvantage looked like in different areas so that schools were better able to meet the needs of their children.

·         It was commented that disadvantaged children in selective areas needed more assistance, and this was why a locality model was needed.  It was reported that secondary schools had never felt more connected to the local authority since the new sector led model was introduced.

·         It was requested that staff be thanked for their work in achieving targets, as it was acknowledged that Lincolnshire did have challenging targets.

·         It was confirmed that schools were being monitored in terms of those that were choosing not to buy in services which were provided for free in the past, to determine whether this had an impact.  It was also noted that officers were trying to be creative with training, such as by recognising and reducing duplication within the system.

·         It was commented that it was nice to see the KPIs presented in the way they were, as it was very clear and easier to understand.

·         In relation to permanent exclusions, it was queried whether there had been a problem in the county.  It was noted that there was still a significant issue of too many young people excluded permanently from school, but it had been identified as an issue, and so far a 25% reduction had been seen since the new pathway was put in place in September 2016.

·         It was queried whether the number of days that schools had been in special measures was normal.  It was noted that there were schools which were a concern as they were drifting and that a sponsor was not secured quickly enough.  There was a concern that delay could lead to more children leaving the school which would in turn make it a less attractive option to potential sponsors It was also noted that an academy in special measures would not be monitored again by Ofsted and so would not have the chance to come out of special measures.  Once a school entered special measures it became the responsibility of the RSC.  The sponsor for South Witham had taken over and the school was improving.

·         It would be important to identify patches of deprivation rather than looking at general areas, as it was commented that if poverty in Grantham generally was looked at, it would be a different result to if one particular estate was looked at.

At this point in the meeting it was moved, seconded and:

RESOLVED

            That in accordance with section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government           Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the            consideration of Appendix D to the report on the grounds that if they             were present there could    be a disclosure of exempt information as             defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local          Government Act 1972, as amended.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to ask questions in relation to Appendix D of the report and officers responded to those questions raised.

RESOLVED

            That after the consideration of exempt information, as defined above,         the remainder of the meeting be held in public. 

RESOLVED

            That the comments made in relation to the performance information be      noted.