Agenda item

(Report by Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director for Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mr D Adams, Area Education Officer, South Kent, Mr R Dalziel, Area Education officer, North Kent and Ms S Dunn, Head of Skills and Employability, were present for this item)

1.               The Cabinet Member, Mr Gough, and Corporate Director, Mr Leeson, introduced a report that sets out the background and analysis of pressures in the Commissioning Plan for Education Provision 2013-18 prior to the final approval of the Plan by Cabinet on 14 October 2013. 

2.               Mr Leeson confirmed that the Commissioning Plan would be reviewed biannually and the next review would be in Spring 2014.

3.               Mr Gough, Mr Leeson and Officers in attendance responded to comments and questions by Members which included the following:

a)         A comment was made regarding the difficulty in planning for the new influx of people migrating to Kent and commended the accuracy of the data in the report.  The Chairman explained that the district councils were providing much more data, which included new housing developments, on which KCC could forecast student numbers.

b)         A comment was made that KCC should not be reliant on the number of new housing developments to indicate the number of school places needed in an area.  Mr Adams advised that the forecast looked at the capacity long term for those families that were already living in the area and what additions may be required if housing developments happened at the pace that KCC was advised by the district councils.  This allowed robust discussions to take place with the colleagues in the district councils about what future infrastructure needs there might be for KCC, the district council and Health etc and the cost of that could be estimated.  Projections could also be made for the next 10 to 20 years when KCC could identify; what capacity was needed, which S106 contribution would apply and the Community Levy charges, which came on line in 2014.

c)          Ms Dunn explained that work had been carried out on a “Curriculum Map Post 16”, which identified modern foreign language for significant development.  KCC was working with Kent University on how KCC could build in the capacity in some of Kent schools to reintroduce a broader offer of modern foreign languages as a positive option.  This related back to the funding issue where KCC could introduce interesting collaborative pathways across a range of schools for giving those young people who want to do two or three languages at A-level the opportunity to do so.   Mr Leeson added that the changes to the  Qualification Framework at 16 years would contribute to this as well as the increased use of EBAC as a measure of secondary school performance and proposals for creating a new performance measure for schools which was the best outcomes across 8 curriculum subjects rather than 5 which we have now.

d)         Agreement was given to Mr Scobie receiving written confirmation regarding the school playing fields at Laleham Gap, Cliftonville.

e)         Mr Leeson explained that the temporary placements gave the local authority some degree of flexibility in the way it planned and delivered school places.  If there was a one year bulge finding places on a temporary basis was a way of dealing with that issue.  This was no reflection that KCC was unable to be specific in the short term.  Some temporary placements were used to give time to gain planning permission or provision to become permanent.

f)           Mr Dalziel advised that the District Base Priorities Group in North Kent had highlighted the provision of high quality early years places as a priority.  Increases were required for vulnerable families and the provision for two year olds.   The Group had been working with private providers as well as KCC providers of this provision.

g)         In terms of committing to additional forms of entry beyond 2016 in North Kent, negotiations were ongoing with a number of different schools.

h)          Support was being offered to young people in their competencies for the work environment.  This was being carried out by offering them appropriate courses, making sure that they understand why they were on that course and discussing whether they wished to go onto college, university or an apprenticeship etc.  Mr Leeson added that employers had been saying that young people had not been presenting themselves well at interview.  Young people needed to know what employers expected of them.

4.               RESOLVED that the responses to comments and questions by Members be noted and considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 14 October.