Agenda and minutes

No Declarations of Interest were made. 

No members of the public and the press were in attendance. 

The Scrutiny and Member Development Officer reported that an additional meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission would be held to consider Rotherham’s GCSE performance and the Ofsted status of the Borough’s schools.  A date would be circulated in due course. 

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission held on 9^th July, 2014, were considered. 

Reference was made to Minute Number 15 (Young People Missing from Home and Care) and the importance of the Corporate Parenting Panel continuing to have the issue of children and young people who went missing/ran away as a standing item.  

Resolved: -  That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record. 

·         To confirm the Improving Lives Select Commission’s representative to the Recycling Group, 2014-2015. 

Resolved: -  That Councillor G. Reynolds be confirmed as the Improving Lives Select Commission’s representative on the Recycling Group, 2014/2015.  

·         Performance and Quality Manager, Neighbourhood and Adult Services Directorate, to report. 

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Performance and Quality Manager (Neighbourhood and Adult Services Directorate) that outlined the progress against the partnership action plan called the Children and Young People’s Plan, which was created and monitored by the Children, Young People and Families’ Partnership. 

The Plan, which covered the period 2013-2016, was no longer statutory, but it was considered good practice to have one.  The Plan had six priorities: -

·         We will ensure children have the best start in life;

·         We will engage with parents and families;

·         We will reduce the harm to children and young people who are exposed to domestic abuse, alcohol/substance misuse and neglect;

·         We will focus on all children and young people making good progress in their learning and development;

·         We will target support to families in greatest need to help access learning/employment opportunities.

In addition, the priority “We will work with partners to eradicate child sexual exploitation” was also one of the six priorities and was monitored as part of the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board.

Monitoring took place twice a year to highlight progress made on delivering the actions.  Progress against the actions had been assigned a RAG rating. 

The data submission included a performance monitoring report and case studies of successful interventions. 

Overall, of the 159 actions, 25% were rated as Green, 65% were rated as Amber, and 10% were rated as Red. 

The performance at each priority was considered and the Improving Lives Select Commission asked questions about the outcomes and performance.

Priority One: - We will ensure children have the best start in life: -

12 of the actions in this priority were rated as Green, 28.5 were rated as Amber and 11.5 were rated as Red.  

·         What work was being undertaken relating to ensuring that the prevalence of breastfeeding at 6 – 8 continued to increase?

·         Were pre-birth CAFs continuing to be initiated, as these really did influence healthy starts for children;

·         Best Start in Life audits conducted by Public Health;

·         Two-year old early entitlement – were the most vulnerable and hard to reach families accessing their entitlement?:

·         Obesity rates following the start of the universal infant entitlement to Free School Meals;

·         The take up of dental health was disappointing – what was stopping a better take-up?

Priority Two: - We will engage with parents and families: -

35 of the actions under Priority Two were rated as Green, 10 were rated as Amber and 1.5 were rated as Red. 

·         What was the impact of the Early Help Support Panel in working with families to ensure that they were receiving the appropriate level of interventions?

o   Further work was needed to promote the Panel and encourage practitioners to attend, which will improve intelligence gathering;

o   Promotion towards Health Visitors and Schools Nurses would be a focus;

o   The production of case studies that showed how the Panel could operate effectively would be really beneficial.  

Priority Three: -  We will reduce the harm to children and young people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

·         Principal School Admissions, Organisation and Special Educational Needs Assessment Officer, Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, to report.  

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Principal School Organisation and Risk Management Officer (Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate) outlining the consultation document that the Department for Education was conducting on proposed changes to the school admissions code. 

The proposed changes included two significant potential amendments: -

·         To allow schools to give priority to applicants eligible for the Pupil Premium

·         To bring forward the timetable for determining the admissions arrangements so that objections can be received by the Schools’ adjudicator before the start of the admissions round: -

o   This would allow objections to be resolved more quickly and enable a greater number of parents to apply for school places on a lawful basis. 

The consultation document asked six questions.  The Admissions Service had provided a draft response for the consideration of the Improving Lives Select Commission.   

1.    State-funded schools give priority in their admissions arrangements to children eligible for pupil premium or service premium funding: -

o   The proposed answer included that, in Rotherham, approximately 90% of applicants consistently received their first preference.  Analysis showed that most pupil premium eligible children made a preference for their nearest and catchment area school.  The proposed answer also made reference to the potential difficulties in collating information about eligibility for pupil premium as part of the admissions process, this was normally collated by the school census when children had been admitted. 

2.    Admission authorities of primary schools to give priority in their admission arrangements to children eligible for the early years pupil premium or service premium who attend a nursery which is part of the school: -

o   Rotherham’s nursery provision varied and some areas had more provision than others, which could lead to local children being unable to obtain a place at their local/catchment area school. 

3.    Create a rolling deadline for admissions authorities to comply with the determination of the schools adjudicator: -

o   The proposed response was that the admissions authority could not see any issues with the proposal as long as all parties had sufficient notice to implement any changes. 

4.    Bring forward the deadlines for objections, determinations and the publication of admission arrangements and to change the timing and length of consultations: -

o   The Admissions Authority could not see any issues with the proposal so long as all parties had sufficient notice to implement.

5.    Admission of summer-born children: -

o   The proposed response was that the Admissions Authority felt that the proposal clarified the position for parents and carers and did not significantly impact on admissions.

6.    Minor technical drafting changes: -

o   The Admissions Authority did not envisage any problems from the proposal but did think that the changes should be drafted as ‘may’ instead of ‘must’, to allow individual authorities discretion to implement where it would be beneficial depending on their circumstances. 

Discussion on the consultation questions and the proposed answers followed, and the following comments were made: -

·         Reducing the timescale for submission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

·         Education Welfare Service Manager, School Effectiveness Service, Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, to report. 

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Service Manager, Education Welfare Service, and the Children Missing Education Officer (School Effectiveness Service, Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate) that outlined the current work being undertaken in the Borough regarding Children Missing Education (CME).

The Improving Lives Select Commission considered the issue of Children Missing from Education at the meeting held on 12^th June, 2013 (Minute No. 7 refers).

A brief overview included: -

·         All children of compulsory school age who were not on a school roll and who were not receiving a suitable education otherwise than being at school (including Elective Home Education, privately or alternative provision) would be classed as ‘CME’;

·         Section 436A of the Education Act required all local authorities to make arrangements to enable them to establish the identities of children residing in the area who were not receiving a suitable education;

·         It did not include children who were registered at a school but who were not attending regularly;

·         The CME duty complimented and reinforced duties that existed for schools and the Education Welfare Service to monitor poor attendance;

·         Maintained and academy schools were required to make regular absence returns to the Education Welfare Service where attendance of individual pupils gave cause for concern.

The submitted report outlined the previous structure of the CME team when there was only one Officer working in the area.  It outlined the streamlined service, improved partnership working with a range of agencies and information sharing pathways had been put in place, in addition to improved IT capacity for tracking, recording and reporting to enable de-registering where appropriate.

·         An appropriate escalation system was in place;

·         The Education Welfare central management team and the CME Officer were co-located in the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) based in Riverside House;

·         Termly up-dates were being provided to the CYPS Directorate Leadership Team and the Lead Member for Children and Young People;

·         The creation of the Fair Access Admission Panel had increased awareness amongst headteachers of the CME picture across the Borough;

·         A temporary increase of staff members from the Integrated Youth Support Service and the School Effectiveness Service had been arranged to focus on the processing, tracking and investigation of CME.  One permanent monitoring post and temporary business support had been brokered, funded from the Education Welfare Service and the School Admissions Service;

·         Home visits were undertaken over the summer holiday, 2014.  By the end of August, 2014, 565 referrals had been followed up;

·         The Services was more able to identify vulnerable groups.

Data: -

The Education Welfare Service Manager reported on the numbers of cases that had been dealt with over the two previous school years: -

2012/2013: -

·         Opened 973 new investigations;

·         Closed 726.

2013/2014: -

·         Opened 1,211 new investigations;

·         Closed 1,413. 

As at 12^th September, 2014, there were 468 current, open active CME referrals. 

Staff and service capacity remained an ongoing issue.  The CYPS Directorate Leadership Team had accepted a plan to extend the capacity of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

·         Meeting planned for Wednesday 1^st October, 2014, to consider exam results and school standards has been cancelled and will be rearranged.

·         Next scheduled meeting is planned for Wednesday 5^th November, 2014, to start at 2.00 p.m. in the Rotherham Town Hall. 

Resolved: -  (1)  That the next meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission take place on Wednesday 5^th November, 2014, to start at 2.00 p.m. in the Rotherham Town Hall. 

(2)  That a further meeting be arranged to consider Rotherham’s overall school performance.