Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to note that Mr J Davies has replaced Mrs V Dagger on this Cabinet Committee

RESOLVED that Mr Davies has replaced Mrs Dagger of this Cabinet Committee be noted

RESOLVED that Mr Craske made a declaration regarding Item D2 that this wife was a governor at Ifield School, Gravesend.  (Mrs Stockell, Mr Vye, Mr Chell, Mr Cubitt, Mr Tolputt, Mr Cooke, Mr Craske declared that they were governors of Kent schools)

1.                  A Member referred to Minute 6 3 (a), (b) and (e), Mr Leeson agreed to produce a summary on the work of the Kent Lead Advisory, submit a monitoring report on Ofsted results to every meeting and strategy report on the retirement and recruitment of Headteachers and  teachers to be submitted to the September meeting.

1.                  RESOLVED that  the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 May 2012 were agreed and be signed by the Chairman, subject to the words “charging KS2” being deleted in paragraph 6 (1) bullet point 2 and the word “had” being replaced with “were proposing to” in paragraph 6 (2) bullet point 5.

(Verbal Update by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

1.                    The Chairman invited Mr Whiting and Mr Leeson to give their verbal updates.  Mr Whiting began by advising Members on of the following:

·        31 of 449 Primary schools were now academies

·        59 of 100 Secondary schools were now academies

·        One of the 24 special schools was now an academy

·        The Government had announcement that 261 schools would be rebuilt or refurbished across as part of the Priority Schools for Building Programme. He was pleased to announce that included in the list were 14 Kent schools, including Leyland Gap Special School. He was disappointed that the DFE had not approved the other applications from Kent that included the Foreland special school and Hartsdown Technology College. Both were in the original list for BSF but no funding has been granted to them.  Work would continue for those schools that did not receive funding in this tranche.   KCC’s funding would be looked at so that those schools in most urgent need of capital funding can be supported.  He concluded that academies in the County had been successful in their individual applications including Fulston Manor School that received over £3million for capital build.

2.                    Mr Leeson gave his verbal update and advised Members on the following:

·        The Strategy for Improvement in Kent was to both support the schools that need improvement most, in a targeted way; and to promote a wider strategy for improvement with all Kent schools, to encourage schools to work with each other in partnership and work with the local authority.  There was a clear commitment from good and outstanding schools in Kent to support other schools.  There was now a developing network of schools in Partnership between groups of schools across Kent to share resources and share expertise. This focused on three key issues:

Ø      To improve Standards of Literacy, especially at Key Stage 2;

Ø      To improve the quality of teaching in schools from satisfactory to good overall; and

Ø      To increase the rate of Kent schools overall, for those judged to be satisfactory to become good schools or outstanding schools.

·        There were targets set within Bold Steps for significant improvement by 2015 in those areas mentioned above.

·        The Kent Association of Headteachers was proving to be effective organisation in supporting and promoting this work too. 

3.                    There was a determination to be more effective at District base working.  Each District worked differently, they had different issues and the locality was the most meaningful way to think about improvement and joint working.  Work was being undertaken to create a district base model.  There were now, through the recent restructuring, dedicated named officers who would be working together as a team in each district in both Education and Social Care.  This was proving helpful to schools in having a clear contact point for support in their area.

4.                    Resources were being removed from county level  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Members are asked to note that these decisions were taken between meetings as it could not reasonably be deferred to the next diarised Education Cabinet Committee meeting.  The views of the Cabinet Chairman and Group Spokesmen of the Education Cabinet Committee were consulted prior to the decision being made in accordance with the new governance arrangements.

(Verbal Update by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

1.               The Chairman advised the Committee that this decision had to be taken between meetings as it could not be reasonably deferred to this meeting of the Education Cabinet Committee and that his views as Chairman and the views of the Group spokesmen had been sought prior to the decision being made in accordance with the new governance arrangements. 

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

a)              Members welcomed the determination to have sufficient places in Reception and Year1 classes in the county.

b)              A request was made for details on the types of temporary classrooms that were available and their cost.  The Chairman agreed to this forming part of the Capital Priority Programme Report to be submitted to the next meeting of this Cabinet Committee.

3.               Mr Christie said that he did agree with the procedure for taking this decision between meetings but had concerns as to why a decision was being taking in July 2012 for places in September 2012.  He sought assurance that the permanent classrooms would not be put into popular schools that would impact on neighbouring schools where there were places available, which he did not agree with.  Mr Christie then commented on St Botolph’s, Church of England School in Northfleet that was receiving extra places which meant that the admissions arrangements that apply to the spaces being provided would be Church of England arrangements, which he did not consider was solving the problem in Northfleet as local children could not get into local schools because of the Churches insistence.  Mr Whiting explained that Kent would always look to secure places in good or outstanding schools where there was space to do so but would not look to increase a school that was in special measurers.  Care had been taken to ensure that all the schools’ availability in the area that the school that was to be expanded was taken into account.  He advised that there were continued discussion with the faith schools about admissions criteria.  He advised that his view was that there should be good local schools for local people.  There needed to be fair access for all children in every locality.

4.               Mr Leeson recognised that this was not a decision that should be made in July normally.  In publishing the draft Education Commissioning Plan a more systematic approach was being taking in planning ahead to make enough provision available for local parents to have a good choice of schools for their child.  In future the Commissioning Plan would allow decisions to be made at an earlier part of the cycle on those issues.  The decision was not just about provision of places but about giving parents reasonable diversity in their choice of good quality education.  There had been decisions made earlier on where schools have had to take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

 (Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

1.               The Committee considered a report on the proposed new model for the delivery of the Specialist Teaching Service, to be devolved to a lead Special School in each District.

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

a)    It was considered that this Cabinet Committee monitored this service.

b)    In reply to a question, Mr Leeson advised that the Specialist teachers were a peripatetic teaching service.  They worked with children in School Action Plus.  They would be based in special schools, mainly primary.  The resource would be prioritised with Outreach.  Outreach would offer advice and support where it was needed.  This would be monitored and evaluated.

c)     In reply to a question, Mr Leeson advised that academies were involved in using this service.

d)    In response to a comment and questions, Mr Leeson apologised and agreed “Gravesend” being altered to read “Gravesham” in the report. He then advised that Ifield school, Gravesend, [an outstanding school] which had considerable capacity was being asked to take on the overarching responsibility for Gravesham and Dartford work in this area for a short period of time, for no longer than a year, as there had been a recent change of teachers at Rowhill School, Gravesend and they needed time to get established in the post. This arrangement would be monitored.  He then advised that the redundancies were voluntary.

3.               RESOLVED that:

a)              The responses to comments and questions by Members be noted;

b)              the overall positive feedback on the consultation and support for the proposed devolution be noted;

c)               the proposed model as described in paragraph 2 of the report be noted;

d)              the implementation of the proposed staffing structure as outlined in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the report be noted; and

e)              the “next steps” identified in paragraph 7 of the report be noted. 

(Verbal Update by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mr D Adams, Area Education Officer was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited the Corporate Director, Mr Leeson to introduce the report.  He highlighted the following points:

• The principles of having the Commissioning Plan are:

Ø     Good quality school places

Ø     Good preferences for parents

Ø     Manage and process resources in an organisation and systematic way

Ø     Bring the data up to date to be able to project forward growth [it was predicted that there would be significant growth in numbers for school places from 2015-16 onwards.

Ø     A range of meetings to take place in the districts with schools.  The data would not only be used for demographic information but to capture local issues.

Ø     The draft Plan would be revised and redrafted for the Autumn.  The final plan would be more detailed in what was happening in each district.

Ø     The Plan would include issues on Early Years and about the development of provision in Special Educational Needs would feature stronger in the Plan in future.

Ø     The Plan would be reviewed annually to assist with forecasting Capital Funding and investment required.

Ø     The Education Cabinet Committee would receive regular update reports.

a)    Mr Cubitt advised that he attended a Gravesham Forum meeting for regarding the Commissioning Plan, which other Members of this Cabinet Committee attended.  He asked that the following comments that were aired at that meeting be taken into consideration as part of the consultation comments for Gravesham:

Ø     There was concern that there was an increase in faith schools Published Admission Number (PAN) and not in mainstream schools.

Ø     There was concern on the numbers were about primary schools and not secondary schools.

Ø     The Diocesan Boards should be the point of contact if we want changes to the PANs of Church schools.

Ø     It was considered that the data used was heavily bias towards birth rates.  In Gravesend there were specific issues of migration fluctuation.

Ø     There was concern that the PAN being increased at St Botolph’s Church of England School, Northfleet and Rowhill School for children with special needs, Northfleet would not answer the problems in Gravesend.  There should be provision made in Ebbsfleet.

b)    Mr Christie added the following feedback from the Gravesham Forum:

Ø     there were concerns regarding the final number of houses being built by Land Securities in the area.  The agreed number was 350 but building had stopped at 330.  It was hoped that Land Securities would build the school and that the school would have a less rigid admissions criteria. 

c)     Mr Christie gave his opinion on the summary of responses received on the consultation that included the following:

Ø     he did not agree with the comments on; page 52 regarding the “Equality Impact Assessment”, page 61 Standards closures “Expansion of popular schools”, and on page 62 “Sevenoaks Satellite”. 

Ø     In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Consultation will have concluded and the views collated to report back to Members for their views.  Decision report scheduled to come back to ECC in November before Mr Whiting takes the decision.

(Verbal Update by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

1.                  The Chairman invited the Corporate Director of Education Learning and Skills, Mr Leeson, to introduce the report.  Mr Leeson  highlighted the following points:-

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

a)     A request was made for a “picture” of all the apprenticeship schemes.

b)     A suggestion was made that there should be a One Stop Shop for apprentices and employers and for the process to be made as simple as possible.

c)       A request was made that the skills/employment matching needed to be monitored.  There needed to be planning on the capacity of people being trained in any one occupation.

d)     There should be focus on integrating support for young people with learning difficulties.

e)     A point of view was expressed that without the government being lobbied to support economic growth all of the targets would be undeliverable by 2015, which was 2 years following the general election.

f)        There was a view expressed that the targets were aspirational rather than realistic targets.

g)     A Member advised that in Dartford the school exclusion rate was exceptionally low and that they would be happy to share what they had learnt.

h)      A request was made for information on the University Technical Colleges.

3.                  Mr Leeson responded saying that the strategy was about delivery and where Kent wanted to be year on year.  He did consider this aspirational giving the example of exclusions and Referral Units targets of zero tolerance on permanent exclusions, at present an alternative did not exist.  There had to be positive alternatives. 

4.                  Mr Leeson advised that Kent employers were saying that they cannot recruit in Kent because the skills do not exist and young people did not come with the right attitude.  There was no employer that would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

(Verbal Update by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning, Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills, and Mr K Abbott, ELS Finance Business Partner)

(Mr S Pleace, Revenue Finance Manager was present for this item)

1.               The Revenue Finance Manager, Mr Pleace, introduced the report and highlighted points that included the following:-

2.               Members made comments and asked questions, points raised included:-

a)              In reply to a question, Mr Pleace advised that the schools were allowed to keep reserves from one year to the next.  These were controlled by balance control mechanism that limits primary and special schools to 8% and secondary schools to 5%. Kent schools reserves currently total £37 million at 31 March 2012, of which £10 million was held for specific commitments.  The £27 million held as uncommitted was for emergencies the school can not pay for from its annual budget.  The Chairman advised that where the reserves were excessive there were “clawed back” arrangements made.

b)              A view was expressed that the contracts cost for Home to School transported were too costly.

3.               RESOLVED that the responses to comments and questions by     Members be noted, with thanks.

 (Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning, Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mrs M White, Strategic Business Adviser and Mrs S Rogers, Director Quality and Standards were present for this item)

1.               The Strategic Business Adviser, Mrs White gave a brief introduction to the report and highlighted the following points:

• This was the first stage of the development for Members of this Committee to review the performance framework against the targets set out in the Bold Steps for Education. 
• Members’ comments on how accessible they found the Framework were sought and whether there were any issues that were not in the document that they wished to monitor.
• In parallel to the development of the ELS score card, work had been undertaken to produce score cards for the 12 District Councils, which were being consulted through District Headteacher meetings.  The aim of this was to show the variances in performance within the districts across the range of indicators.

2.               Mrs Rogers explained that the schools were collaborating by producing action plans.  Funding would not be released until those effective action plans were produced.  The score cards would be monitored at the Board meetings which would be attended by Members of the Directorate.

3.               Members were given the opportunities to make comments and ask questions which included the following:-

a)    Members needed time to study the document to identify what had not been included in the Performance Framework.

b)    Clarification was sought on the percentage of Statements that had been issued in Kent, Mrs Rogers advised that this was a rolling total and therefore was not the final percentage.  A request was made for a report on the gap in attainment between LAC and Free school meals.

c)     Members were reminded of the Member Monitoring Group that looked at the schools’ attainment in detail.

4.               RESOLVED that the responses to comments and questions by Members and the report be noted.

 (Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning, Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mrs M White, Strategic Business Adviser and Mrs S Rogers, Director Quality and Standards were present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited theDirector Quality and Standards, Mrs Rogers to introduce the report.  Mrs Rogers highlighted the following points:

• The report sets out the outturn for 2011 report that was written before Bold Steps for Kent and when the Directorate was “Children Families and Education” before the Directorate was restructured. 
• The priority areas of action had been taken through to the new Education, Learning and Skills Directorate.  In the majority of cases most activity and priorities had been delivered. Where they had not been delivered was due to; in some cases, government funded initiatives no longer existed and in others, where action had not been completed, they would have been taken into the current Business Plans.

2.               Members made the following points:

a)    A request was made for comparisons with neighbouring local authorities.  In response Mrs Rogers advised that there was not a table available nationally that shows a comparative with our statistical neighbours. Mrs Rogers had spoken with the DfE through Kent’s local advisor and they were very unwilling to release the numbers of schools below floor level.

b)    In reply to a question, Mr Whiting advised that the list referred to at County Council question time was a list produced by gathering information from all the counties websites, which took some time to compile.  There was an average figure from across the country.  Mrs Rogers explained that she met with the South East Directors where there was agreement to share information.  Information would be collated in September and that information would be shared with Members.

3.               RESOLVED that the responses to the comments and questions made by Members and the report be noted, with thanks.

(Report by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning, Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

(Mrs S Rogers, Director Quality and Standards were present for this item)

1.               Mrs Rogers introduced the report advising that there had been 80 schools inspected since January 2012 under the new Ofsted Inspection Framework.  There were major challenges for schools.  The breakdown of this was:

The Ofsted Inspection judgements were as follows:

2.               Mrs Roger explained that the schools that reached an Ofsted judgement of outstanding was a slow process moving from good to outstanding.  There were appeals on 3 judgements which were not upheld.  There was also an issue of the conduct of the Inspectors being pursued.

3.               Mrs Rogers also mentioned that since the introduction of the new Ofsted Inspection Framework, that had higher expectations for teaching quality and achievement, the programme “Every Lesson Counts” had been extremely successful tracking the progress in schools.  There were still problems in attracting the quality of teaching staff in areas of deprivation and more support needed to be offered to the school governors to challenge the leadership in their schools.

4.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:-

a)              In reply to a question, Mrs Rogers advised that there was no data to compare Kent with its neighbouring local authorities.  There was an interim review in March/April 2012 that showed too many schools were declining.

b)              Members congratulated officers on the work of “Kent Challenge”.  The Chairman concurred and requested a report that sets of the impact of Kent Challenge against Ofsted Inspections to be submitted at the next meeting.

5.               RESOLVED that:

a)              the responses to comments and questions by Members and the report be noted; and

b)              a report setting out the impact of Kent Challenge against Ofsted Inspections to be submitted at the next meeting of this Cabinet Committee.