Agenda and minutes

The Committee noted that Mr J Walder had replaced Mr P Vokes as a Teacher Advisor to this Committee.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings held on 5 July and 24 July 2007 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)       The Committee considered a report which set out the process for finalising the first Towards 2010 Annual Report prior to approval by County Council on 18 October 2007.  Included with the report were the targets where the Children, Families and Education Directorate is either the lead or a major contributor.

 (2)      Members were invited to make comments and ask questions on the targets which included the following:-

a)     Target 10 –  Improve the quality of early years education by strengthening the links between pre-schools/nurseries and primary schools, thereby improving children's ability to learn when  they enter primary school

·          Although the improvement at set out at the end of second paragraph “inadequate “provision in education has reduced to 6%” it was suggested that this could be presented in a more positive way.

·          It was noted that the 12,000 new childcare places across Kent were not just in the maintained nurseries.

·          Members requested Information on the “Leuven Project”

·           It was suggested that timings should be given for work in progress

·          A Member mentioned that in the current years budget more funding was requested for Early Years (EY)  practitioners and support which was not put into the budget, he asked if this was likely to be included in next years budget. One of the Cabinet Members confirmed that this was in the bidding round.  There was some discussion about the form that this support should take.

·          It was suggested that the issues of quality of provision could be reported to the Members Monitoring Group and a report, which did not identify specific setting be submitted to this Committee

·          When projects such as the Leuven Project” are proposed for specific areas the Members requested that the local Member should be informed about the project and updated on progress.

·          Where percentages are given in the measurable indicator, it was requested that the actual figures also be given.

·          The impact of the Children’s workforce strategy should be acknowledged.

·          It would be helpful to list the agencies involved in delivering targets

            b)  Target 11 –  Help and inspire all our children to do well, with a particular focus on ensuring that the results our seven and 11 year-olds achieve at Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 improve faster than the national rate

·          A Member pointed out that the mention of underperformance by LAC and boys could stigmatise them when the document goes into the public domain, it was suggested that other reasons for lack of progress with the target should be mentioned as well.  A Cabinet Member responded that in order to target resources we needed to be specific about the audience.

·          It was clarified that “seasonal” meant “termly”

·          Some Members stated that if there were going to be continued improvements at KS2 there was a need for Local Education Officers to have extra support. Another Member felt that if any additional resources were available they should be directed at schools rather than support staff.

·          A Member mentioned that if there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

(1)       Mr Carter presented a report which informed Members that Kent was soon to be subject to a Joint Area Review (JAR) of Children’s Services, with inspection fieldwork taking place in early 2008.  The JAR aimed to assess how effectively KCC and partners worked together to improve outcomes for Children and Young People, with a particular focus on vulnerable groups.  The outcome of the JAR was critical to Kent’s Corporate Performance Assessment (CPA) outcome, with a score of 3 or better required to maintain the excellent rating.  The report provided information about this process, preparations being made and links to other inspections taking place at the same time.

(2)       In response to a question from a Member Mr Carter stated that according to the guidance from Ofsted on the JAR process, Opposition Members were not involved in the process.  Opposition Members would of course have an involvement in the CPA process which was a much wider exercise.

(3)       That the report be noted and that further updates be submitted to future meetings of the Committee

(1)       The Committee received a paper from the Leader which gave his response to the questionnaire of all Policy Overview Committee Members.

(2)       RESOLVED That the report be noted