Agenda and minutes

(1) RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2010 are correctly recorded subject to ‘Deputy Lead Member’ being altered to read ‘Deputy Cabinet Member’ and in the appendix ‘Mr Cater’ name being altered to ‘Mr Carter’.

(Verbal report by Mrs J Whittle, Deputy Cabinet Member (Learning) and Mrs M Haeusler, Director for Learning and Mr M Baker, Strategic Director for Schools, Settings And Colleges)

(1)         The Chairman asked Mrs Whittle to begin with her update.  Mrs Whittle advised the Committee of the work she had been undertaking within her portfolio since the last meeting which included; the focus on Primary Attainment and progress on the National Challenge stating that she saw these areas interlinked and continued and strengthened collaboration between both Primary and Secondary schools was essential to tackle where there was low attainment in the schools.  She spoke of the hard work being undertaken by staff, pupils and parents to develop a range of programmes and gave one example of a school offering support, The Hayesbrook School, Tonbridge, through a Family Learning Programme for pupils and parents, to enable parents to understand how pupils learn at the school.

(2)         Mrs Whittle referred back to Primary Attainment mentioning the County Council meeting held on 1 April 2010, where Members received a presentation from Clare Brice-Smith from the Audit Commission when she stated that there was a need for Kent to focus on raising Primary Attainment.  Mrs Whittle said that she was please that there was to be a Select Committee looking at Primary Attainment.  She advised that she had visited University of Kent and was to visit Canterbury Christchurch College that had carried out work in schools to engage children in the love of learning; she felt that it would be a good idea to engage them in the work of the Select Committee.

(3)         Mrs Whittle mentioned the huge amount of work being carried out by the Schools Improvement Team to help school that had not reached their floor target in their SATs and Key Stage 2 targets.  The prediction was that the schools that had not reached their floor target would be halved next year.  As part of the raising attainment in both primary and secondary schools would start as early as possible, most of the Children’s Centres where up and running and integrating a range of services under one roof, including Early Years, engaging parents and children in their learning.  Mrs Whittle paid tribute to the work undertaken by Jennie Landsberg, Principal Advisor on Early Years and her Team on the quality of early years setting which had improved substantially over the past 2-3 years, which Mrs Whittle felt would have a knock on effect of improving Key Stage 1 and then Key Stage 2 results. 

(4)         Mrs Whittle then gave further examples of collaborative work in Primary and Secondary schools where specialist teachers from secondary schools and 6^th form students were teaching pupils in Primary schools. She gave one example of a gifted mathematic student in year 12 who was teaching gifted mathematic pupils in year 6 of the Primary school, which she said was wide spread across the county.  

(5)         Mrs Whittle then spoke on the 14-19 year olds  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

(Report by – Mrs M Haeusler, Director of Learning Group, Mrs R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families & Education Directorate and Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education Directorate)

(Mr C Berry, Head of Attendance and Behaviour Service (Acting was present for this item))

(1)         The Committee considered a report that outlined the priority in Kent for all schools, working with Local Authority (LA) support, to continue to address high overall absence, and within this, persistent absence (PA).  This supported the delivery goal set by Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), that by 2010/11 no local authority would have more than 5% of its secondary school pupils identified as being persistently absent. This target was described as National Indicator 87 (NI87).

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

(3)         In response to a question by Mr Vye, Mr Berry said that it needed to be clear that criteria for persistent absence of more than 20% could be for any reason including a broken leg.  However if a child was absent for a day or a week the school should identify what was in place to improve their attendance.  There was a link with attainment.  He explained that in schools where there was very clear recording analysis, showing clear interventions being made, tended to be the schools that tackled poor attendance levels and also showed improving attainment levels.  He felt that there was also a link with those schools that were being creative and flexible.  The Schools Improvement Partners were able to offer support and the ability to challenge the school on provision it was making so that the school was a place where the children wanted to be. For the DCSF and OFSTED these were extremely high profile areas over the past two years.  

(4)         In response to questions by Mr Critchley, Mr Berry assured Members that regarding areas of deprivation Kent was not different to other parts of the country and that Kent was showing improvement in not just bringing down levels of persistent absence where there were social issues but the gap was also narrowing between attendance and absence records in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived areas.  Where school was not important and valued by parents that was where it was most difficult to change the entrenched apathy towards school and education.  Links with the size of Kent meant that to reduce absence by 0.01% in Kent you would need to change the entrenched attitude of 78 pupils, the statistical analysis acted against Kent.

(5)         In response to a question by Mr Walder, Mr Berry advised that the DCSF was being lobbied regarding the advice that it was giving on extreme weather conditions that it was better for schools attendance figures for them to close where the absence figures would not count against their overall figures.  If the school remained open the school would have to make a judgement on whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

(Report by – Mrs M Haeusler, Director of Learning andMrs P Harris Head of Service - Advisory Service Kent)

(1)         The Committee considered a report on the educational reporting cycle for Primary Key Stage 2,   in particular the schools below the floor target.

(2)         Mrs Harris had tabled colour versions of the reporting cycle within the papers. Referring to the reporting cycle, Mrs Harris said that it was the right time to report back on the actions in light of the results detailed within the report.  She highlighted the effect of the recent national boycott by teachers on SATs tests in Kent, advising that out of the 440 Kent primary schools, 25 schools had boycotted the SATs tests, out of those 25 schools, 3 schools were in floor targets.  Kent had 5% of its schools boycotted in comparison to West Sussex County Council, which had 45%.  Mrs Harris said that she looked forward to seeing the results.  Referring back to the chart she advised that the National Challenge had an early bank of results. She was able to divulge that out of 30 schools in the National Challenge the majority would be above the floor challenge, narrowing the gap between those children on free school meals and those non free school meals.  Mrs Harris then went on to explained the school schemes for those children on free school meals applying for and receiving laptops.

(3)         Mr Walder advised the Committee on the reasons why teachers belonging to the National Union for Teacher (NUT) boycotted the SATs tests.

(4)           The Chairman felt that it was essential that it was clear when the Committee would be able to review and scrutinise during the cycle for Key Stage 2.

(5)         In response to a question by Mr Critchely, Mrs Harris explained that a detailed report on the gifted and talented, in terms of the outcomes level 5 and 6 at Key Stage 2 and A* in GCSE would be submitted to the Committee in the Autumn by Mr Silk, Gifted & Talented Adviser.   The outcomes of those children gifted in sport, Art and drama will also be looked at.  In terms of scrutiny Mrs Harris suggested that the Committee could select a group of Gifted and Talented and an analysis of that group could be provided with the actions and questions outlined in the report.  In terms of monitoring, Mrs Harris suggested that there was an opportunity to look in depth at free/non school meals gap.

(6)         In response to a comment by Mr Jarvis, Mrs Harris explained that at 5A* to C, Kent was ranked 1 out of 11 but not in the case of including English and mathematics.  There was a need to work harder with the 74 schools that were below the floor target of 55% of children that achieved Level 4 in both English and mathematics with the right programme as it was different across the County.  The East Coast, Dartford and Gravesham were linked with areas of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

(Verbal Report by Ms S Dunn, Head of the 14-24 Innovations Unit)

(1)         The Chairman asked Ms Dunn to introduce herself to the Committee and give her presentation.

(2)         Ms Dunn gave a presentation in three parts, which included; the formal transfer of the post 16 funding arrangements acquired from the Learning and Skills Council, the National Commissioning Framework (tabled at the meeting) and how Kent County Council (KCC) will move the agenda forward working with partners and providers supporting the young people of Kent.

The formal transfer of the post 16 funding arrangements acquired form the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)

(3)         The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) ceased to function as from 31 March 2010.  KCC had now taken over those functions which meant that 13 Members of the LSC staff had been transferred into KCC.  Ms Dunn’s Team had increased from 4 to 18 working on the 14 to 19 agenda.  Two of those transferred staff were placed in Finance, which was a significant element of the former LSC activity and function.  All the staff that had transferred from the LSC had undertaken a rigorous induction programme and all new providers, work place providers and colleges had been paid on time.

(4)         Work was still being undertaken in the area of the Learning Difficulties and Disabilities(LDD) especially with those placed outside Kent in Independent Specialist colleges. Those placements were costly up to £170k per year. Work was being carried out with the Young Peoples Learning Agency (YPLA) to solve a number of issues that had arisen. 

National Commissioning Framework

(5)         Ms Dunn referred to the tabled document highlighting the page headed ‘Key Contributors to the Commissioning Process’ advising that the Local Authority was duty bound to provide learning and training in Kent for 16 to 19 year old and LDD through working in a National planning and commissioning Framework.  Ms Dunn stressed that this was not KCC’s process and was a National Process that had to be followed prescribed by the Department of Education.  The local authorities flexibility in using the Framework maybe to meet local priorities was very limited.  The function was discharged through the Children’s Trust arrangements and the sub group 14 to 19 Strategic Forum, which looked at how we plan 14 to 19 provision in localities.  The partnerships included schools, colleges, work based providers, Connexions and in some cases employers.  There were currently 9 Forums, however through the Children, Families and Education Directorate restructuring this would be arranged in 6 Planning Forum Areas.  KCC had been asked to work with Medway to ensure a coherent pattern of learning across local authority boundaries as there were a number of young people who resided in Kent opted to look for provision in Medway and vice versa.  There was also work to be undertaken to strengthen the cross boundary borders with Bexley and Dartford in particular.

(6)         The agency that there would be most connectivity with was the YPLA, new relationships needed to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

10.45 - 11.20 am    Alison Clarke, Canterbury College

11.20 –11.55 am    Bill Fearon, West Kent College

11.55 – 12.30 pm    Paul Hannon, Hadlow College

RESOLVED that the evidence received from three FE Providers; Alison Clarke, Principal, Canterbury College Bill Fearon, Principal, West Kent College  Paul Hannon and Principal, Hadlow College (attached as appendix 1) be noted.       

(1)         The Committee recalled Ms Dunn to discuss the evidence received from the FE Principals and to answer questions and comments made by Members which included the following:

(2)         In response to a question by Mr Wickham, Ms Dunn advised that pre 16 year olds KCC had jurisdiction through the Funding forum.  Post 16 the funding was received through the Funding Formula which was a very complicated process that went down to the lowest decimal point for each qualification there was a different formula.  Ms Dunn agreed to forward information on the funding.

(3)         Mr Vye suggested that there was a job of work in the area of interplay between the schools and colleges to give young people optimum choice, well charted pathways, the flexibility of courses that took place in both schools colleges and pathways with co planning for courses in the future. Ms Dunn explained that KCC did aspire to a parodying shift of post 16 year old provision away from an institutional lead option in terms of choice and pathways more down to an individual lead pathway with a quality progression route.  She indicated that that point had not been reached at this point in time and it was the role of the 6 planning areas to address. Ensuring there was a fuller choice as possible, that the pathways were correct and the need for flexibility, many young people did not want to spend 2 years on one course, they may prefer a blended learning approach, more flexibility personal approach to a learning opportunity. In terms of co planning for schools and colleges, Ms Dunn advised that this was not easily to solve as the institutions were in competition, because the number of learners in an institution determined its overall budget, so there was a vested interest in a school or a college maintaining its current size of 6^th Form or current size of engineering programme. This had formed detailed discussions and debate within the Learning Group on how to make 6 Planning Forums become effective.   Mrs Dunn agreed to share the roles of the 6 Planning Forums with this POSC in the Autumn.

(4)         In response to questions by Mr Burgess, Ms Dunn explained that the local authority had to be clear when college Principals were saying that there was not equity of funding, in relation to one particular aspect of the Funding Formula was hugely complex schools, in one strand of the funding it was correct to say that school 6^th forms received slightly more money than college 6^th forms based on a particular element of the funding stream. Because of the complexities of the funding stream it was the aggregated by other factors depending on what qualifications were, what the social indices of the locality were etc.  Ms Dunn said that she was unable to fully answer the question at this present time but it would be necessary to speak with colleagues in Children, Finance and Education finance to consider  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

(1)         The Committee considered all the evidence and information that they had received from the interviews with the Students, Employees, FE College Principals and Officers and the evolving role of this Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee (POSC) and the wider role of the County Council. 

(2)         The Committee made suggestions and comments and agreed that the Chairman formalise the recommendations to progress KCC’s role in the planning and commissioning of provision of learning and development for 16-19 year olds.  The chairman agreed to circulate the recommendations to the Committee outside the meeting.

(Following the meeting the Chairman produced the following recommendations using the Members conclusions from the evidence gained at the interviews with students, employers, FE College Principals and Officers)

(3)         RESOLVED that:

(Recommendations generated from student and employers interviews)

(a)         agreement be given that each year there be at least three, one to one relevant consultations on Information, Advise and Guidance for all 14 -19  students, and that activity is monitored and reported once a year to this POSC;

(b)         agreement be given to formalising the tracking of individual 14 -19 yr old students progression, by following yearly cohorts of 15 students drawn from and managed by providers and an annual report to be presented to this POSC;

(c)         following research of previous projects agreement be given to a new “certificate of employability” be developed to prepare students for the world of work;

(d)         across directorates agreement be given to, the present programs for apprenticeships and  targets and their achievement be reviewed and reworked in the light of the current economic climate;

(e)         agreement be given to examine how talented people can be retained in Kent and  a report be submitted to this POSC on the progress of the Graduate Gateway;

(f)           Dr Holt’s warnings of rigid division of academic and vocational qualifications be noted;

(Recommendations generated from the FE sector interviews)

(g)         agreement be given to the Canterbury College model of shared timetabling and premises be extended out to other towns and colleges;

(h)         agreement be given to KCC examining any comparable inequality of funding across providers in order to provide best value for learners;

(i)           agreement be given to examine and prevent re take of qualifications or learning at students’ transfer from school to post 16 education;

(j)            agreement be given to better partnership working, for student choice and Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) at the interface of school and college and college and university;

(k)         agreement be given to the Learning and Development POSC  and other POSCs to visit the Canterbury, West Kent and Hadlow Colleges that presenting on 20 May 2010, to capture “ how it is on the ground”;

(The Learning and Development POSC’s evolving role)

(l)            the Learning and Development POSC continue to use the distinctive and unique talents and experience of its membership for the benefit of learners and to be able to think and act “out of the box” be noted;

(m)       the Learning and Development POSC be able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

(Report by Mr P Wickenden, Overview, Scrutiny and Localism Manager)

(1)         Members considered a report on the progress to establish the Select Committee on Extended Services and a request for suggestions for Select Committee topics.

(2)         The Chairman suggested a Select Committee being set up after the reporting of the Regeneration and Economic Development POSC and Children, Families and Education POSC visits to districts “To examine and report on the integration of the learning skills and education with jobs and regeneration in Kent”.

(3)         RESOLVED that:

(a)   the Scrutiny Board be requested to endorse a Select Committee being set up after the reporting of the Regeneration and Economic Development POSC and Children, Families and Education POSC visits to districts “To examine and report on the integration of the learning skills and education with jobs and regeneration in Kent”; and

(b)   the report be noted.