Agenda item

1.         Members had a general discussion about aspirations for this piece of work and set out views on what should be included and how the topic should be approached.  Views expressed were as follows:-

a)         there is much good practice that the committee should hear about, but it is also important to find out where things are not happening as they should, for instance, interviews representatives from some of the 5% of schools which do not meet the minimum standards of the core offer;

b)         there will shortly be another select committee which will look at low attainment in primary schools, and this committee should avoid crossing over into its remit;

c)         it is important to talk to the people involved in delivering extended services on the ground, as well as hearing about theory and policy;

d)         the committee should not be introspective and look just at Kent’s practice, but should look outside for examples of good practice which could be copied;

e)         some Head Teachers and governors are reluctant to relinquish ‘ownership’ of their school, but there needs to be change of attitude towards seeing the school as belonging to the community;

f)          the review needs to look at how to reach hard-to-reach and disaffected families who do not engage with school, children’s centres, etc;

g)         the review should look at how academies could engage more with their communities, and how their facilities could be used by the community;

h)         the committee should not become involved in staffing issues around the reorganisation of the CFE Directorate;

i)          it would be helpful to engage with the Cabinet Members who proposed the review, half way through the evidence gathering process, so the committee can share its findings so far; and

j)          the list of witnesses invited to contribute evidence, either written or oral, should be as broad as possible.

2.         In addition, it was suggested that the committee undertake visits to the following:

            a)         The Bridge project in Dartford;

            b)         The Living Well project in Dartford; and

            c)         The Quartet Community in Garlinge, near Margate.

3.         Members discussed and supported the proposed Terms of Reference which were set out in page 4 of the papers, as well as the Scope which expanded the Terms of Reference, and agreed the following adjustments to the wording of the latter:-

• Amend 2c) to read ‘clarify commissioning roles and relationships between schools, Local Authorities and other commissioning bodies.’

• Amend 2d) to read ‘Investigate how partnership working between all agencies involved in providing extended services in Kent can be maximised.’

• Delete the word ‘explore’ from 2e)

• Add a new Term of Reference 5 to read ‘having investigated the above, make recommendations…..’

4.         A suggested additional point 4d) ‘to explore the potential of 16 – 19 year old providers’ facilities to provide extended services’ was not added, but it was agreed that Mr K Smith would look into and report back on this issue as a ‘rapporteur’.

5.         Members then commented on the list of proposed witnesses set out in the meeting papers, advised the Research Officer of the names of those whom they thought were key witnesses, and suggested some names to add.

6.         RESOLVED that:-

a)         the Terms of Reference, Scope and Witness list for the Select Committee be agreed, subject to the amendments set out in paragraph 3 above;

b)         A suggested additional point 4d) ‘to explore the potential of 16 – 19 year old providers’ facilities to provide extended services’ be taken forward by Mr K Smith as a ‘rapporteur’; and

c)         the views expressed by Members, set out in paragraph 2 above, be taken into account when preparing the work programme for the Select Committee.