Agenda item

The Panel was updated on performance and financial information for services relating to children and families.

In the course of the discussion, the following main points were made:

Education

·       Members were informed that under the new Ofsted framework, only exceptional schools would be judged as ‘outstanding’.

·       In relation to the % of good or outstanding schools, a Member asked why the County had remained below the national average for the last 12 months.  Members were reminded that the School Improvement Team in Babcock Prime assessed and supported schools at an appropriate level.  All maintained schools would receive 2 visits per year from a School Improvement Adviser.  In addition, termly headteacher briefings were held and approximately 75% of schools attended.  By maintaining contact with schools, officers were able to spot the early signs when things were not working.  Schools were assessed as being in one of five categories ranging from light touch through to intensive support.

·       Members were reminded that the data was inclusive of all schools, including academies.  School improvement was therefore more of a challenge as the Local Authority had no remit with academies.  However, the Service had good relationships with academy schools and many attended headteacher cluster groups and district briefings.  Although in terms of numbers of schools, the split in the County was approximately 50/50 between maintained and academies, in terms of pupil numbers, more children were educated in academies.

·       Members were informed about the DfE Improvement Programme.  Schools requiring support were identified by the DfE and the full list was shared with the Local Authority.  If the DfE and the Local Authority were both working with a school, it was important that the support was as joined up as possible.

·       It was confirmed that, if a school was judged by Ofsted to be inadequate, it would automatically move to academy conversion, with the slate wiped clean and no Ofsted judgement attached.  However, the judgement of inadequate would remain in performance data.

·       Concern was expressed about potential delay in getting academy trusts to take over an inadequate school.  It was confirmed that this might be a more complicated process in the case of Voluntary Controlled schools.

• The Panel requested further data in relation to the improvement rate of schools rated as ‘requires improvement (RI)’ and ‘inadequate’, the length of time spent in the ‘RI’ and ‘inadequate’ category, and the time taken for an ‘inadequate school’ to convert to an academy.
• With reference to school attendance, the Director of Education and Early Help agreed to check whether the carry over of July data to August had an impact on annual data.
• Concern was expressed about the high level of outstanding enquiries in relation to children missing education.  It was confirmed that these were looked at on a weekly basis.  It was suggested that it could be argued that a high number of enquiries was positive in that it showed that vulnerable children were being identified.
• The high level of young people Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) in September was due to it being the start of term and the number of young people moving from school or college.  The Local Authority was reliant on schools and colleges reporting where young people had moved to and this created a lag as reports were received through the course of the autumn term.  Concern was expressed about the risk of children who were electively home educated becoming NEET.
• It was confirmed that there was currently no data in relation to ‘off-rolling’.  In the past Ofsted had identified some schools in Worcestershire as ‘off-rolling’ students and these schools had been put on a ‘watch list’.  It was confirmed that this was no longer the case, but officers were ever vigilant with tracking being done via intelligence rather than data.  The Director had written to all schools to clarify the legal position with regard to part time timetables.
• It was confirmed that Personal Education Plans (PEPs) for Looked After Children were coordinated through the virtual school.  The PEP was being re-designed to make it a more purposeful and child-focused tool.  It was confirmed that Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) played an advocacy role for Looked After Children in relation to their PEP.  Although it was important to ensure that the PEP was up to date, it was also essential that the Plan was of a high quality.

SEND

• The Chairman of the Panel was very concerned to learn that some children with Education, Health and Care Plans were electively home educated and questioned whether parents were able to provide an adequate education for pupils with SEND at home.  She requested a further breakdown of the types of SEND of EHE pupils.
• She went on to express further concern about the number of children who had been assessed as needing SEN support when in school but who would not receive this when educated at home.  This was something that would be further explored as part of the upcoming scrutiny exercise.

Social care

·       It was agreed that in future, previous years’ data would be included to allow comparison.

• The Panel requested further information on Worcestershire children who had been placed out-of-county in unregistered children’s homes, including when, where and in what circumstances.

·       Members noted that being placed out-of-county did not necessarily mean being far away from a child’s home area if they lived near to the County border.  It was acknowledged that this was a blunt indicator but one that all Local Authorities were measured on.

·       In relation to the recruitment of staff, Members were reassured that on average staffing levels were fine, although there was some fluctuation from time to time.

·       With reference to Looked After Children who became NEET, it was suggested that, as Corporate Parent, more should be done to identify employment and training opportunities within the Council.  Members were reminded that social workers worked closely with the modern apprenticeship team and the Council was committed to working with other authorities and partners.  The Panel requested figures for the number of LAC given work experience or apprenticeships with the County Council or partners.

·       A Member reported that he had recently met members of the Care Leavers Council who had not been aware of work experience placements within the Council.  The Panel agreed that the availability of work experience placements for Looked After Children should be more widely disseminated.

·       It was confirmed that not all children identified as being vulnerable to Child Sexual Exploitation would currently be the subject of a social care intervention.  However, historical vulnerabilities would be flagged if a child was to come to the attention of social workers in the future.  It was confirmed that the data was single agency data taken from Framework-i.

·       Concern was expressed about levels of child poverty in the County, including the number of children having to be fed by food banks during the school holidays.  It was confirmed that a Child in Need level 4 social care plan would include consideration of issues relating to poverty.

·       It was confirmed that social worker caseloads were currently consistent and manageable, and the use of agency staff continued to be low, with the Family Front Door being fully staffed.

In-Year Financial Information

The Director of Resources (WCF) reported that the forecast overspend on Dedicated School Grant (DSG) budgets was £8.9m which was in line with the national position.  Members were informed that the Government had recently announced a consultation on the Dedicated School Grant.  It was confirmed that, although some local authorities had smaller deficits, some were far larger.  There remained the need to monitor the deficit very closely.

In relation to non-DSG budgets, the Director of Resources noted a £925k overspend in Home to School and College Transport.  Without this overspend, Children’s Services would be under budget and the Service was in a decent place financially going forward.

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were raised:

·       Members were informed that the overspend in Home to School and College Transport was due to the budget not being set properly, originally.  A Member suggested that it may be helpful for families to have access to personal budgets to allow them to arrange their own transport.  It was confirmed that this would be considered as part of the longer-term transport strategy, which would look at the best way to meet individuals’ needs and use the available money as efficiently as possible.

·       In relation to the overspend, Members were informed that tenders for the service had been received after the budget had been set and actual costs had been higher than anticipated.  It was confirmed that this had been reported to Cabinet.

·       A Member asked whether the budget for early years was sufficient given the crucial importance of work with this age group.  The Panel was reminded that the 2020/21 budget for Worcestershire Children First was just about to be set and would be considered by the Panel at a future meeting.