Issue - meetings

Specialist Teaching Service Devolution - 12/01937

Meeting: 10/07/2012 - Education Cabinet Committee (Item 17)

17 Specialist Teaching Service Devolution pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 (Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

 

1.               The Committee considered a report on the proposed new model for the delivery of the Specialist Teaching Service, to be devolved to a lead Special School in each District.

 

2.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:

 

a)    It was considered that this Cabinet Committee monitored this service.

 

b)    In reply to a question, Mr Leeson advised that the Specialist teachers were a peripatetic teaching service.  They worked with children in School Action Plus.  They would be based in special schools, mainly primary.  The resource would be prioritised with Outreach.  Outreach would offer advice and support where it was needed.  This would be monitored and evaluated.

 

c)     In reply to a question, Mr Leeson advised that academies were involved in using this service.

 

d)    In response to a comment and questions, Mr Leeson apologised and agreed “Gravesend” being altered to read “Gravesham” in the report. He then advised that Ifield school, Gravesend, [an outstanding school] which had considerable capacity was being asked to take on the overarching responsibility for Gravesham and Dartford work in this area for a short period of time, for no longer than a year, as there had been a recent change of teachers at Rowhill School, Gravesend and they needed time to get established in the post. This arrangement would be monitored.  He then advised that the redundancies were voluntary.

 

3.               RESOLVED that:

 

a)              The responses to comments and questions by Members be noted;

 

b)              the overall positive feedback on the consultation and support for the proposed devolution be noted;

 

c)               the proposed model as described in paragraph 2 of the report be noted;

 

d)              the implementation of the proposed staffing structure as outlined in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the report be noted; and

 

e)              the “next steps” identified in paragraph 7 of the report be noted.