Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2016 were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chairman.

1.    Mr Oakford, Cabinet Member for Specialist Children’s Services introduced this item and explained that there had already been a substantial amount of work on the Select Committee recommendations; work was progressing well with good results.  Mr Segurola, Director, Specialist Children’s Services, set out the highlights of the progress on the recommendations which included:

·         Recommendation 4: The letter had been drafted and would be sent to the Children’s Minister within the next week.   

·         The merging of the Corporate Parenting Panel and Corporate Parenting Group was underway, the last meeting of the Group had been held and a report which included its remit and composition would be discussed at Corporate Parenting Panel. 

·         Recommendation 13:  There were concerns around care leavers and their NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) position, in part due to the large numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) entering Kent.  This was a key priority for the Corporate Parenting Panel.   

·         Recommendation 15:  There were complex issues around housing and the limited volume of social housing available across the country, with increasing numbers of young people with leaving care entitlements and an increase in UASC there was a gap between supply and demand. 

·         Referring to the Transformation programme there was a 16+ accommodation strategy.  The aim of this strategy was to have a range of options appropriate for young people to ensure they were not left unsupported but that the service provided value for money and that the commissioning was ‘smart’. 

2.    In response to a question from the Chairman Mr Oakford confirmed that in total there were around 1,400 UASC, 950 of these young people were under 18 years of age.  The remainder were over 18 years and these young people presented a challenge in relation to their supported accommodation needs.  By the end of 2016 there was expected to be around 800 UASC over 18 years in Kent requiring supported accommodation. 

3.    Mrs Wiltshire, the Chairman of the Corporate Parenting Select Committee, welcomed the positive news around children in care and the supported housing arrangements for those children leaving care.  There were concerns around other Local Authorities placing vulnerable children within Kent, but the partnership working was welcomed.

4.    Mr Oakford confirmed that the Council was lobbying Government on these issues, a dedicated officer had been appointed within the staff team of the Kent Safeguarding Children Board (KSCB) to coordinate and advise on placements made in Kent by other Local Authorities.

5.    Mr Segurola explained that the voluntary dispersal scheme, in respect of UASC, had resulted in 77 young people being appropriately placed outside of Kent County, further offers had been received for another 26 young people, however this represented just 10% of the young people who had arrived in Kent over the past year.

6.    Members reflected on the in depth work of the Select Committee and thanked Mrs Wiltshire and the Officers involved in the review for such a thorough report.

7.    In relation to young people leaving care a Member asked for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

1.    Mrs Whittle explained that the Committee had concluded its evidence gathering during February, a first draft of the report would be produced in the coming week, and a report would be submitted to Cabinet on 25 April and then to County Council on 19 May.  Mrs Whittle highlighted a few key areas from the review:

a.    At present 2.8% of the overall grammar population were on Free School Meals (FSM).  This figure increased in the young year groups: Year 7 = 3.4%, Year 8 = 3.7% with Year 13 = 2.1%.

b.    The Select Committee looked at the young people attending Grammar Schools who had been on FSM at some point within the last 6 years (so the school was in receipt of Pupil Premium for each of those young people) which was just over 8%.

c.    The Committee had also focussed on those young people who were not eligible for FSM but were still low income families. 

d.    Within Key Stage 2 – Level 5 – 51% of young people on FSM went on to Grammar School

e.    Within Key Stage 2 – Level 5 – 73% of young people not on FSM went on to Grammar School

f.     Why were more children from low income backgrounds not going to Grammar Schools? 

2.     Evidence had been received from a range of sources including Education experts, Head Teachers and Parents and Young People and the Committee had focussed on the Social, Educational and Financial Barriers to entering the Grammar School system.  Outreach and mentoring was also key but was not consistent across the County, this was particularly difficult with an increase in super selective grammar schools. 

3.    Mrs Whittle confirmed that the Select Committee had heard that there was a ban on coaching for the Kent Test, that families should be provided with a full range of information and that it was important for Head Teachers to be given the opportunity to network and share information.  There was a lack of consistency across Kent. 

4.    Mrs Whittle was praised for her chairmanship of the Select Committee.

RESOLVED that Members note the progress of the Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Select Committee. 

1.    Mr Wedgbury explained that the Energy Security Select Committee was a pioneer Committee in looking at this topic.  Members had received the first draft of their report and were due to meet with the Cabinet Member in the coming week.  The Select Committee would report to Cabinet and then to County Council in May 2016.

RESOLVED that Members note the progress of the Energy Security Select Committee. 

1.    The Chairman introduced the item which was a call in of Decision 15/00114 – Proposal to Close Pent Valley Technology College.  He welcomed the witnesses and explained the process of the meeting.  The Chairman also referred to a written submission from Mr Whybrow, one of the local Members, which had been circulated to Members of the Committee. 

2.    Mr Cowan briefly explained his reasons for calling in this decision which were set out in the supplementary agenda pack.  Mr Cowan had held a meeting with Mr Gough, Mr Adams and Democratic Services prior to the call-in being approved but was pleased that the decision would be fully scrutinised at the Scrutiny Committee meeting.  Mr Latchford supported the call-in. 

3.    The Chairman asked the two external speakers, Mrs Claire Potts and Miss Bethany Smith, to set out their view on the proposed decision.

4.    Mrs Potts thanked the Committee for allowing her to speak to them about this decision, she highlighted the main areas of concern for parents and the community which included the following:

a.    At the Education Cabinet Committee, 17 February 2016, it was stated that: if the intake for September 2016 was 100 pupils or more KCC would try to keep the school open with a recovery plan.  Mrs Potts asked why, when the original 54 first choice requests were made, the remaining 46 places could not be filled with pupils who had requested Pent Valley as their second choice. 

b.    What alternative options there were to the proposal to close the school and what evidence of the alternative options? 

c.    Referring to the £1.5million investment into Pent Valley in June 2015 – why was this undertaken and now there is a proposal to close the school. 

d.    The consultation period ran from 6 January 2016 – 3 February 2016.  On 9 December Pent Valley students received allocation letters to other schools.  Teachers at Folkestone Academy had been informed that their class sizes would be increasing and there were concerns over the support staff needed in classes of 40 pupils. 

e.    Had all pathways been lit to ensure children could travel in the dark and was there a plan for buses on relevant routes? 

f.     Mrs Potts was aware that KCC had received emails from Folkestone Academy parents setting out concerns such as inadequate teaching and bullying.  Parents were planning on moving their children from Folkestone Academy in to Pent Valley. 

g.    Why year 9 students at Pent Valley, who had recently chosen their GCSE options could not be guaranteed the same subjects at alternative schools due to class sizes and classes being full.

h.    Pent Valley Ofsted report was ‘good’ in Jan 2013 the last Ofsted report for  Folkestone Academy was ‘requires improvement’ 

5.    Miss Smith was then invited to speak to the Committee.  Miss Smith raised the following points and questions:

a.    The Government had stated that by 2020 every school was to become a free school or an academy.  Presumably the Council did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.