Agenda item
Children Schools and Families
The Lead Member Children’s Services, Councillor Abdul Asad, will attend to report on his portfolio and also respond to concerns raised at the last meeting in relation to second quarter performance against strategic indicators.
(Time allocated – 45 minutes)
Minutes:
Councillor Abdul Asad, Lead Member Children’s Schools and Families, gave a presentation, supported by Ms Isobel Cattermole, Acting Corporate Director Children Schools and Families, on points of detail, which:
· Set out the key issues, successes and challenges arising from his portfolio.
· Responded to concerns expressed by the Committee in December 2009, in relation to quarter 2 (September 2009) under performance against indicators for Children/ Education.
the points which the presentation focused on are set out below.
The Chair informed members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that a
paper containing the main points of the Lead Member presentation had been Tabled, a copy of which would be interleaved with the minutes.
Successes
· The Ofsted annual assessment rating of Children, Schools and Families (CSF) Directorate, gave it the top grade of 4 “Performs Excellently” and commended work done with vulnerable groups in the borough.
· Beacon Award for work on child poverty.
· Some excellent exam results achieved young people from Tower Hamlets at both primary and secondary level. Results were above the national average at Key Stage 2, and progressing particularly well in maths between Key Stages 1 and 2. GCSE results this year were the best ever and improving at twice the national average.
· A reduction in the number of children and young people not in education, employment or training.
· An increased number of 13-19 year olds accessing youth work services in the borough.
· 100% of final statements of special education need were issued within 26 weeks.
Performance concerns
CSF had a policy of setting challenging targets as a spur to accelerated progress and particular care was being paid to the 8 performance indicators. Slide 3 before the Committee showed progress since quarter 2, but two indicators remained of concern:
§ A level attainment: performance had dipped against national figures. An ambitious action plan included: robust progress monitoring, targeting individual pupils with additional tutoring, increased opportunities for 6th form providers through professional development/ sharing good practice.
§ More needed to be done to ensure that primary schools did not slip below floor targets for Strategic Indicators 317 and 318: Reasons for underperformance varied with different schools, but none were persistently under-performing. Intervention measures were outlined, but concerns remained about the implications of Head Teacher turnover.
§ For the other 6 indicators, much progress had been made and the direction of travel was encouraging. Performance was above the national average and improving for most targets across the piece, but unlikely to be met entirely.
In relation to the concern expressed regarding some social care targets:
· Initial and core assessments for social care: unprecedented volume nationally of referrals after Baby P. Managing this in Tower Hamlets, given demanding Government completion timescales and a national recruitment problem, was more difficult due to volume far above average. A raft of initiatives were in place to sharpen focus at the “front door into care”, streamline the associated work, monitor performance; and performance had improved on the previous year. A detailed briefing note would be circulated to members of the Committee.
· Placement stabillity – Currently off target on a rolling year. A volatile indicator but the target should be met by keeping moves to a minimum in Quarter 3.
Challenges
· High levels of child poverty remained a major issue despite a good strategy and Beacon status.
· Rapidly growing population of young people: Population predictions indicated another 5000 under fives and another 14,000 five to eighteen year-olds in the borough by 2021.
· Changing patterns of immigration was likely to mean more different ethnic groups in the borough, creating new demands.
· Increased budgetary constraints would form the context in which increasing demand would need to be met.
Opportunities
· Supporting families and parents
· Building Schools for the Future
· Raising educational leaving age to 18
· 2012 Olympics and Paralympics
Members of Overview and Scrutiny Committee then posed a series of detailed questions to which Councillor Asad and Ms Isobel Cattermole, Acting Corporate Director Children Schools and Families, responded. The question and answer session was centred on the following points:
· Concern expressed that the presentation had not referred to the potential for improving GCSE results as a result of providing community language tuition. The Lead Member responded that the recommendation of Lord x that 2 modern languages be taught at primary level from 2011 onwards, and the associated community campaign had led to a review of the Council’s language policy, with the outcome to be reported to Members shortly. Ms Cattermole reported that GSCE results for languages were good and early achievement in Bengali contributed to this.
· Consideration that many of the outlined measures to improve educational attainment appeared to target those young people not achieving. Consequently clarification was sought and given regarding measures in place to support gifted and talented children, and thereby raise the confidence of these young people and their parents in the Council’s educational provision, obviating any need to look elsewhere. Requested that members of the Committee be provided with further detail.
· The measures being taken to improve educational achievement by young white people of the borough, in the interests of community cohesion, following a review of the issues and reporting of concerns/ actions to January Cabinet. Also given consideration that the absence of a white candidate for Young Mayor would not support this agenda, clarification given regarding the steps taken to ensure this election process was open to all.
· In the context that 7 out of 8 strategic indicators relating to education had been reported as on red at the end of quarter 2, concern expressed at the apparent disparity between actual performance and that considered to be appropriate (as articulated in the targets set); particularly with regard to the direction of travel for A level attainment in Tower Hamlets, which contrasted with a national trend of improvement. If targets were unrealistic, were management steps being taken to address this. Steps being taken to ensure the general quality of educational provision at A level and specifically to address underperformance at Tower Hamlets College were outlined in response.
· Referencing a report that approximately 60 children of primary school age had been unable to find places for over a year, clarification was sought and given as to the reason for this (primarily it related to an offer of a place which was not a first or second choice). What was being done to ensure a sufficient number of places in future, given the challenges of population growth to 2021 and immigration patterns referred to by the Lead Member.
· Whether the Building Schools for the Future Programme was on track to deliver on budget and on time.
· Whether the authority was supportive of the plans, set out in a recent letter to Members, for a sixth form at Phoenix School.
· What steps were being taken to promote the take up of modern languages at secondary school, particularly Mandarin, Spanish and Portuguese, given the importance of these skills in the labour market. Details of such provision to be given to Councillor Heslop.
· Recent Member casework highlighting bullying of a Somali child by children of other ethnic backgrounds and exclusion of the victim as the only way to guarantee their safety. In this context clarification sought and given as to whether an Equality Impact Assessment had been undertaken (details to be forwarded to Councillor Heslop). Policy on bullying in schools outlined and Corporate Director to look into the particular case. Also noted that a scrutiny challenge session on school bullying would take place shortly.
· Whether there was any initiative to identify and publicise role models for children on the autistic spectrum.
· The concern emerging from the ongoing scrutiny review into youth offending, regarding the ability of such young people to read and write when leaving school particularly a significant proportion with dyslexia and the reasons why this was not identified and addressed at an early point.
· Requested that members of the Committee be provided with further analysis of performance against target for NEETs “16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training” (National Indicator 117): number pertaining to percentage, analysis by LAP area and overall reduction.
· Requested that members of the Committee be provided with further details of the increased number of 13-19 year olds accessing youth work services in the borough, referred to by the Lead Member in his presentation. It was understood that performance had been lagging in this area and quantitative evidence would provide comfort regarding progress.
· Consideration that progress against target for at least 30% of pupils achieving 5 or more A-C grades at GCSE including English and Maths appeared to be increasingly hard won. In this context how did Tower Hamlets compare against neighbouring boroughs such as Newham and Hackney, how had the best performance elsewhere been achieved, and what further work was needed in Tower Hamlets to match this.
· Referencing a report in the East London Advertiser that a number of students from Tower Hamlets had not been offered a place at a secondary school in the borough, and had remained out of school, but that students from neighbouring boroughs had received such offers, clarification sought and given as to reasons for this and whether future transition arrangements for local children would address this. Assurance given that there were sufficient secondary places for local children and although 89% were offered a place in the school of 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice it would never be possible to offer all their 1st choice as those schools simply did not have the capacity.
· Comment that some primary schools did not meet the access requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and consideration that it was important to ensure that children with disabilities could access their local school at the starting point of their education.
· A member of the Committee requested that in future Powerpoint presentations for the Spotlight be distributed to members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee two days in advance to enable more informed scrutiny and questions.
Adjournment
At this juncture the Chair Moved and it was Resolved that the Committee adjourn for a period of 5 minutes, the time being 9.15pm, for a comfort break and that the meeting reconvene at 9.20pm.
The meeting adjourned at 9.15pm
The meeting reconvened at 9.20pm