Agenda and draft minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no questions from the press and public.

The meeting considered a report of Sioned-Mair Richards and Delia Watts, Scrutiny Advisers on the outcome of a scrutiny review of Citizenship Education in Rotherham.  The group had comprised of members from the Democratic and Resources and Lifelong Learning Opportunities Scrutiny Panels, together with representatives from the Rotherham Youth Cabinet.

Councillor Pickering thanked everyone who had been involved in the Review and outlined the content of the Executive Summary and summary of findings and explained how the work could be developed and rolled out into the next century.

Citizenship looked at how a student could be prepared for the role and responsibilities of adulthood and how life as an adult worked.  It involved understanding the part that they and others play in their community and the responsibilities that they would have in adulthood. The three strands of Citizenship education are Social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy.

The aim of the review was to seek out good practice in the teaching of citizenship in Rotherham schools and to identify how this could best be disseminated.

Members of the review had been invited into schools and had attended lessons in order to observe the ethos and to understand how children can benefit from the Citizenship in Education.

All Rotherham schools had had an opportunity to contribute to the Review in one form or another and the work had progressed well.  In instances where the initiative is interpreted it works well and pupils are able to see the benefits of it.

One of the recommendations of the review was that the Council, in collaboration with the LEA Advisory Team and Library Service, compile an information resource for use in the delivery of citizenship education.  This should include an explanation of local governance in Rotherham, how it is structured and the key players.  Each school should be issued with the resource which should include the names and web page addresses of the councillors who represent the area in which the school is situated.

It may be that a smaller review is necessary on the democratic dimension in terms of the role of Councillors and training will be undertaken.

The information had been considered at the Democratic Renewal Scrutiny Panel and was to be submitted to the Youth Cabinet.  At the conclusion of this process, a report would be submitted to The Cabinet.

Members of the Scrutiny Panel raised the following issues:-

-                       How were the Secondary Schools chosen for inclusion in the review? Were there any plans to allocate a budget to young people?

                  All of Rotherham’s schools had the opportunity to contribute to the     review through the completion of a questionnaire.  Some schools give their school councils responsibility for a small part of the budget, such as                   for playground equipment.

                  Is Citizenship always taught as a separate subject or can it be included in       another curriculum area? To what level could Citizenship be studied?

                  The meeting was informed of the overlap between PSHE and Citizenship,        particularly when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Councillor Stonebridge attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman in order to explain the process of call-in and consideration of matters by the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee, and, in particular, the reasons for a decision taken by PSOC at Minute No. 120 held on 25^th February, 2005.

The minute referred to a request from this scrutiny panel to consider a report prior to it being determined by the Cabinet Member.

In terms of the current political arrangements within the Local Authority, it was explained that less attention has been given to overview of scrutiny, certainly from a legislative point of view, than perhaps the work of the executive decisions.  This was starting to improve.

Councillor Stonebridge explained that clearly key decisions are reported through the Forward Plan, a rolling document which is updated on a quarterly basis.  Key Decisions are for items costing over £100,000 up to £500,000 and affecting 2 or more wards.

Increasingly the grey area was around what constitutes a decision if it is not a key decision, some of which are around policy, community impartiality, scale and in cases where Cabinet Members make decisions.

Some Local Authorities dealt with this by allowing PSOC members to access reports and minutes from the time a meeting is called.  This enabled them to be aware of a series of small scale proposals prior to decisions being made.  In Rotherham, only Chairs and Vice Chairs of Scrutiny Panels can attend Cabinet Member meetings. 

Rotherham, in common with all local authorities, has a call-in procedure that is available to all members. 

In addition the Chair of PSOC is able to look at items likely to be contentious at the point of publication and discuss them with Cabinet Members.

The Cabinet Member outlined the delegated powers process and her role as Cabinet Member.  The decision taken on block bookings at the Cabinet Member meeting in question was taken in line with Council policy and a vote within this scrutiny panel did not constitute a change of policy.  The issue had originally arisen from one query from a constituent on a gymnastics activity which had been advertised incorrectly.

The meeting debated issues regarding the block booking system.

The following views were expressed:-

-                       How could members effect changes if scrutiny process could not influence the democratic system?

-                       some constituents had been informed they could pay weekly and some groups could not afford to block book

-                       no mention had been made at the executive meeting of the views of this Scrutiny Panel

-                       role of non-voting co-optees who were not eligible to take part in call-in

-                       need for six members to call-in a decision

-                       the need to “toughen up” relationship between scrutiny and executive process – that has yet to be debated

-                       time restrictions on executive decisions did not make the process easy

-                       scrutiny process could review policy and recommend changes – did a reaffirmation of policy constitute a decision?

-  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Graham Sinclair, Acting Strategic Leader, Resources and Information, outlined the financial situation on the FSS and Outturn Analysis 2000-2004.

The statistical information showed:-

-                       variance spend above SSA/FSS

-                       total Education Budget (including spend outside the Programme Area)

-                       total carry-forwards

-                       outturn after carry-forwards (overspend)

The Cabinet Member explained that this information had been provided due to a question raised on Education spend.  Spend on the Education budget was in balance.

Members raised questions on schools’ spending and outstanding balances.

The Chairman commented that Primary Schools had plans to spend surplus balances on more staff for assessment and preparation, in line with the national workforce reform.

The Acting Executive Director added that at the end of the last financial year the position with primary balances had fallen for the first time in a number of years.  This was felt to be a reflection of the fact that the schools have been effective at managing their financial affairs, although in the short to medium term, a fall in pupil numbers will put pressure on school balances.

Balances had increased in Secondary Schools but collective balances in Rotherham schools are at a reasonable level.

One member referred to overspends, particularly in the transport and special educational needs budgets and questioned whether the base budget was sufficient.

The Acting Executive Director reported a great deal of progress on the special educational needs and home to school transport budgets within the last year, both of which had spent close to budget, although pressures do remain.

Resolved:-  That the statistical information on the SSA/FSS budget allocation and spend for 2000-2005 be received.

Ann Clegg, Acting Head Inclusion Support Service and June Williams, Principal Education Officer submitted statistical information on fixed period and permanent exclusions from September 2001 to the present time.

The information gave a breakdown of categories and outlined some of the work taking place within schools within the Safer Schools Partnership.

There had been no permanent exclusions for the past two years due to incidences of drugs.

The Scrutiny Panel raised issues on the content of the information and asked for a school by school breakdown in order to compare how individual schools in similar circumstances responded to fixed term and permanent exclusions.  In addition, it would be helpful to the scrutiny role to consider trends and compare statistics with other Authorities. Anecdotally, it appears that some schools exclude large numbers compared to other schools in similar circumstances.

Some schools appear to exclude large numbers compared to other schools who had no exclusions.

The Acting Executive Director explained that a decision to exclude was a Head Teacher’s based on individual school policies, each case being dealt with on an individual basis.  The LEA worked in partnership with schools and gave advice to ensure consistency.  A great deal of emphasis had been given in Rotherham to anti-bullying measures and there was a high level of consistency across Rotherham schools.  Detailed information was shared across schools which allowed them to draw comparisons.

Ann Clegg reported feedback from DfES who felt the exclusion record in Rotherham was good.  There was a significant reduction in exclusions and days lost through fixed exclusions in comparing September 2003 -May 2004 and September 2004-May 2005.  A great deal of work had been done by Schools/Head Teachers/School Services to bring about this reduction.  There were no exclusions in Primary Schools which was very pleasing.  Ann Clegg believed there would always be variances but felt that the overall work over the last two years was proving beneficial.

A question was raised regarding who was responsible for excluded pupils and other inclusive strategies to segregate and teach children away from mainstream classes.

Ann Clegg reported that DfES guidance was very clear on the education of excluded pupils.  For a pupil excluded for less than fifteen days, the school was responsible for providing work to be done at home and marked by school.  In cases of exclusions beyond fifteen days, schools remain responsible but supported by LEA central services to provide a programme of education.  Some schools were using a seclusion approach, rather than employing fixed term exclusions in the first instance.  This involves a pupil working in isolation, but on the school campus, and may include work on anger management and coping in a mainstream classroom.  One school had reduced their fixed term exclusions through use of such a technique.

June Williams outlined her role in relation to the exclusion of pupils and informed the meeting that schools were very much guided by DfES legislation.  In cases of non-conformity it was her role to point this out at the exclusion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

The Strategic Leader, School Improvement submitted a report containing the results of the GCSE examination results for 2004 and how they compare to previous years to the national average and to the results of statistical neighbours.

The validated figures provided are for all Year 11 students including those educated in special schools.

The percentage of pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs at the higher grade A*-C had improved over the past three years and Rotherham was closing the gap in terms of  the national averages.

A new system has been introduced this year to calculate the average point score of pupils, this includes a wider range of GCSE equivalent qualifications.  Comparisons for this indicator can only be made, therefore, against other figures for this year and not against performance in previous years.

Every year the Department of Education and Skills publish the list of qualifications it approves.  The change in the calculation of average points score allows recognition for qualifications on lower levels of achievement.

Only 5% of pupils in Rotherham left school in 2004 with no GCSE equivalent passes.  This is slightly below both the national average and the average for statistical neighbours.

Girls are still significantly out-performing boys.  The gap in 2004 has remained the same as 2003.  Since its widest point in 1998, however, the gap has narrowed by 4.2%.  This is a National issue and was an area of work for priority over the coming year.

Members of the Scrutiny Panel raised the following questions:-

-     Clifton Comprehensive School seemed to have made good progress in     terms of 5+ A-C grades.  Was there a reason for this? 

            Cliftonserves an area that has the highest level of social and economic   deprivation. Strategies involving course work and attendance at         examinations had been established.  From Year 10-11 each child would             have been assessed and pupils at risk of underachieving would have been            identified and mentored in terms of help with future improvement.

            Other schools will have a focus of work from the School Improvement       Service.

            Thrybergh Comprehensive shows a 13% increase from the 2003-04      figures and Wingfield was predicted to make significant strides forward in       2005.  No schools were below the DfES floor target of 20%  5+ A*-C          achievement.   However, this target will increase to 25% in 2006.

-           What did statistical neighbours mean?

            Ofsted allocate a number of particular areas that are judged as authorities          similar to Rotherham, which was then compared against them.  Local       comparisons were also carried out.  For example, Rotherham’s GCSE     results were the highest in South Yorkshire..

-           Why was St. Bernards Comprehensive School the highest scoring school?

            The point was made that St. BernardsSchool was a faith school and                    as such drew pupils from across most of Rotherham.  They had adopted the same rigorous strategy of monitoring every individual pupil and made a                        prediction internally to monitor their  progress from Year 9 to Year 11 to            ensure that every pupil is supported in achieving their expected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

The Strategic Leader, School Improvement, submitted a report on A2 and AS Level examination results for 2004 and how they compare to previous years, national averages and to the results of statistical neighbours.  Eight out of the 16 secondary schools make provision for post 16 students. 

Schools offer two types of course:  Advanced Level General Certificate of Education (GCE) and Vocational Courses. 

The report covers the schools’ achievements in GCE Advanced Level examinations.

The Rotherham results are the highest of the local neighbours.   However, the situation is now quite complex due to the introduction of a wider and broader range of subjects and in terms of comparative judgements.

Changes in the way the information was reported were outlined.

Girls are still achieving higher which was a local and National pattern.

The overall pass rate on GCE A Levels is 98.2% which is greater than statistical neighbours.

The Chairman felt that children should not have to end their education at the age of sixteen, and that a good sixth form can offer all pupils an opportunity, whatever their academic ability.

Resolved:-  That the report be received.

Consideration was given to a report of the Strategic Leader, Culture, Leisure and Lifelong Learning on the progress on Leisure PFI development up to May, 2005.

The Invitation to Negotiate document was issued to interested parties in January, 2005.  This document invited eligible consortia to submit detailed proposals for the new Leisure Facilities.

There are two consortia involved; each made up of organisations.  These are Leisure Connexion and DC Leisure.  Detailed bids are required to be submitted by late summer.

It is anticipated that work will start on site very soon after the contract is signed, with all of the facilities being completed by 2007/08.

As part of the selection process, consideration will be given to the order in which the facilities will be constructed.  It is not possible to determine at this point what this will be, although the most likely situation is that work starts on a number of sites and others follow on.

Certainly the building facility at St. Ann’s is of primary importance and there will be opportunities for those involved to see what the nature of the work is before the preferred bidder is decided.

A question was raised regarding the selection of bidders in terms of whether they could be connected.   The meeting was informed that the whole pre-qualification exercise had tried to mitigate against this.

Both consortia involved were separate Leisure Organisations with separate maintenance and construction firms.

Both internal and external Auditors had been involved in the compilation of the Business Case.

One member asked whether consideration had been given to the use of solar energy.

The meeting was informed that the designer would come back with solutions to meet outputs and that as issues of sustainability were very important in Rotherham, any design that included energy-reduction features would be looked upon favourably.

Resolved:-  That the report be received.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of this Scrutiny Panel held on 25^th April, 2005 be received.

Resolved:-  That the decisions made under delegated powers by the Cabinet Member for Education, Culture and Leisure Services held on 12^th and 19^th April, 2005 be noted.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meetings of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee held on 8^th and 15^th April, 2005 be received.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the Children and Young People’s Sub-Group held on 19^th April, 2005 be received.