NOTES OF A MEETING HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2004 OF
THE SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP BOARD
PresentCarey Bennet, Tracey Chapman, Sarah Dignasse, John Durrant, Jerry Glazier, Gordon Hewlett, Barbara Hutson, John Hunter, Iris Pummell, Clair Pyper, Liz Railton, Malcolm Reeve (Chairman for the meeting), Tania Rogers, Gary Smith, Kate Spiller and Joyce Woodham
ApologiesRuth Brock, Judith Lunn, and Stephen Wyatt
As Iris Pummell had been delayed by traffic, Malcolm Reeve took the Chair.
- Welcome
A welcome was provided to Barbara Hutson, the Chair of ASESME and Clair Pyper, Head of the Children and Young People’s Service.
- Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting
a)Ofsted inspection of the LEA –all those involved in the focus groups were thanked. Informal and confidential feedback had been provided by the Ofsted team:
i)there had been a good degree of accuracy in our self-evaluation.
ii)there was much to do by the relatively new team in the Council; the inspection report endorsed the vision and direction and will provide a springboard from which to go forward.
The Board would be involved in discussions on the report and action planning once it had been published.
b)Information provided to parents about special schools – this matter had been discussed with the Executive of ASESME. The Council was confident that the correct information was being provided to parents and information was also available on the Council’s website, however, further exploration was required to see whether the information met the requirements of parents. ASESME had recommended that information should be developed which gave parents a clearer idea of the types of needs that different schools could meet; representatives of the special schools were preparing information about the respective types of schools. There was a perception amongst some headteachers that a number of parents of children at the transition of Years 6 and 7 were not being given consistent advice. Any evidence of misdirection to parents should be provided to Carmel Littleton, Head of SEN and Pupil Support Services. It was recommended that the agencies which had contact with parents should be provided with relevant information. The note of this matter would be provided to the Parent Partnership Service for follow up action to be taken as necessary.
c)Governor representation on the Admissions Forum – this outstanding matter would be followed up with the Council’s Law and Administration team. It was noted that membership of different organisations was the responsibility of the respective organisation.
d)Services to Schools Working Group – it was agreed that a meeting of the Group should be arranged even though not all representatives had been identified by their respective associations.
- Extended schools and local delivery groups
a)Essex is in the third tranche of the extended schools initiative and the DfES would make £1.5m available for 2005/06. It was intended to use the funding to develop capacity in each locality in Essex.
b)There may be diverse approaches across the County but with a consistent approach in relation to performance standards and outcomes.
c)It was acknowledged that the extended schools approach would promote the school improvement agenda.
d)There was a wide-ranging discussion on ‘vulnerable’ children with a recognition that there was a need for a common language; about 1/3 of all children could be considered to be in this group. It was unclear whether children as carers were included in the group. The proxy indicator of eligibility for free school meals provided a high correlation with the percentage of vulnerable children.
e)Deciding the composition of the local delivery groups as network of extended schools was complex; the Board supported the view that the network should take into account levels, pockets and patterns of deprivation and eligibility for free school meals.
f)The initial focus for local delivery groups had been on primary schools as they had the closest links to local communities; linkages to secondary schools had then been factored in. It was recognised that in some local delivery groups it would be advantageous to have sub groups to take into account demographic changes e.g. Thames and Haven Gateways.
g)It was hoped that schools in particular would engage more with the local Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnerships, and the local delivery groups should provide an approach to representation.
h)The next step following the series of headteacher meetings this term, would be to produce a paper for Cabinet. Work would continue with the executives of the headteachers’ and governors’ associations.
- Annual report of the Schools Partnership Board
a)The draft report was welcomed with a small stylistic amendment proposed. It was hoped that the Board would be able to contribute more effectively to the Council’s policy process during the coming year.
b)Agendas and notes of previous meetings of the Board would be posted on the Schools Infolink now that this had been updated.
- Evaluation of Priority 7 in the LEA/DfES Compact
a)The Compact setting out the local priorities had been agreed with the DfES in early 2004. Priority 7 focused on partnership working with schools. A paper setting out progress was received and this would be updated in the light of additional comments received from the Board and Council staff; the updated paper has been sent out under separate cover.
b)It was noted that there were good partnership working arrangements with the professional associations including the JCC. In this respect it was proposed that information on the relevant meetings should be included on the Schools Infolink.
c)Further consideration would be given as to how headteachers and school staff could be involved further in the Council’s scrutiny arrangements. In particular it was recommended that there should be earlier notification to stakeholders of key policies being discussed at the Policy Development Group and the Performance Improvement Committee.
d)It was also proposed that Cabinet Members should be involved more in discussions with the executives of the headteachers’ and governors’ associations.
- Election of chairman
a)This item was deferred until the next meeting.
- Children’s Services Review
a)It was noted that there was an increasing number of looked after children. This was leading to increasing costs, often in out-county provision.
b)The review had demonstrated that there needed to be more joined up services with children with special educational needs.
c)Increasing use was being made of Procurement Services in order to achieve value for money for specialist placements.
d)In the light of pressures, the Council was investing funding from its reserves to recruit additional childcare staff, and was reviewing the eligibility criteria to reduce the number of unallocated cases.
e)Further discussions would need to be held with schools to consider the involvement of universal services, making alternative and relevant provision using a range of professionals and identifying alternative routes for service users.
- Response to the Bichard Report
a)A paper was received setting out the current thinking of the Council and the ACPC.
b)Schools were seeking to have all non-teaching staff and volunteers checked through the CRB.
c)Training would be an issue for those involved in the selection of staff.
These and other matters would be addressed through an update at the next meeting of the Board.
- Budget 2005/06
a)The Leader of the Council had given an assurance that funding for schools would be passported.
b)Headteachers had been briefed; further briefing was needed for ESGA and the professional associations.
- Items for the next meeting
a)Election of Chairman and appointment of Vice Chairman
b)Response to the Bichard Report
c)Ofsted Inspection Report
d)Essex Approach Delivery Plan for Children and Young People
- Dates and times of next meetings
11 January at 10.00 – please note change of date and time
9 March at 14.00
10 May at 14.30
11 July at 14.30
All meetings to be held in Committee Room 6
1