Minutes:
The
Committee scrutinised the following matters:
Cabinet
Board Proposals
6.1 When I am Ready Policy and Practice
Guidance
The Committee received the report on information on
the implementation of the When I am Ready Scheme that comes into being on 4
April 2016, as detailed within the circulated report.
Members were informed that the When I am Ready
Scheme was being introduced by Welsh Government and sets out the Local
Authority’s legal responsibilities in respect of post 18 living arrangements
for young people in foster care. The Council was required to set up a scheme in
line with the requirements of the code. It was explained that there was a
requirement for payments to be made in line with the national minimum payments
for foster carers and therefore there were financial implications to
introducing the Scheme. It was noted that the When I am Ready Scheme replaces
the existing Extension to Placement Policy.
Members recognised the positive aspects of the
Scheme. It was commented that unlike the ‘Staying Put’ arrangements in England,
it was disappointing that there was no funding from Welsh Government for the
When I am Ready Scheme. It was clarified that the 50k maximum additional
funding required for the Scheme was overall for the first year. Members asked
if the young people could contribute money to the household, if they were
working or on benefits, and it was confirmed that this was the case. Members
also queried if the weekly amount contributed by young people would change if
their circumstances changed. Officers explained that Children and Young People
Services would pay a young person a basic weekly maintenance allowance if they
were unable to claim benefits and the financial arrangements were outlined in
the report. Members asked that in a case of a young person who had been in care
and was in full time education this would affect their financial circumstances.
It was confirmed that young people in this situation would also receive the
maintenance allowance.
Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report
be noted.
6.2 CSSIW Fostering Inspection Report –
March 2016
The Committee highlighted that overall this was a
good report. It was noted that there had been a number of recommendations and
Members requested that officers reported back progress against them. Officers
explained that an action plan had been developed to address the recommendations
and confirmed progress would be reported to a future meeting.
The report was noted by the Committee.
6.3 Inclusion Business Plan 16/17
The Committee received the report and presentation
on the Inclusion Service Business Plan 2016-17, as detailed within the
circulated report.
Members were presented with an overview of the
Inclusion Service. The Service wanted to ensure there was efficient and effective
provision to support children and young people with additional learning needs.
It was highlighted that there was pressure on the Service as there had been a
significant increase in the number of pupils with Additional Learning Needs.
The Service was developing an Autism Strategy for children and young people in
partnership with other internal and external services. Another priority was to
establish a Continuum of Support for children and young people with social,
emotional and behavioural difficulties. It had to be ensured that there was
consistency of provision and the Service delivered the outcomes required.
It was highlighted that the pressures on the
Service were continuing to increase and there was more challenging behaviour
from pupils. It was important that the Service developed the expertise of the
workforce and early identification of children with additional learning needs
was key. Some pupils were not being diagnosed until
Year 6 and this resulted in reduced time for transition work from primary to
secondary school. It was noted that getting the correct balance of skills in
the Service was being addressed in the business plan.
It was highlighted that Neath Port Talbot had above
the national average of pupils with statements of Special Educational Need
(SEN). It was noted that if there was not enough evidence in the statements of
SEN parents would have the right of appeal. A person centred approach was being
developed and the Service was working in partnership with parents and other
agencies to deliver the best outcomes for pupils. It was explained that there
were planned places available within the Council’s two special schools and in
addition16 primary and secondary schools had Learning Support Centres (LSC). In
2015, 364 pupils attended these centres, 14 more than 2013. Almost all LSCs are
already at full capacity for 2016-17. It was noted that the Service was looking
at establishing a Second Education Nurture Centre.
Members noted that there were no learning support
centres for Welsh speaking pupils. Officers explained that they had previously
audited the support units and there had not been a need for this provision and
that they would look at this again if required. It was highlighted that there
was a shortage of Welsh speaking speech and language therapists. Members asked
if the Service worked with other local authority areas to provide specialist
services. It was confirmed that there was joint working across the Education through
Regional Working (ERW) region and there was sharing of good practice.
Officers explained that most pupils with a
diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) would be taught in a mainstream
school with additional support. However, there was challenge from parents
seeking alternative, independent and costly therapies. It was highlighted that
legal representatives were offering free advice to parents on behalf of
organisations offering independent therapy. This resulted in some parents
challenging what services their children were being offered. Members expressed
concerns about this practice and that vulnerable parents could be targeted.
There was also concerns that some of the therapies being offered were implying
that they could cure children of their conditions, which was not the case. It
was noted that such activities were putting additional pressures on the
department and there were more challenges to statements. The Service had to
evidence that they were meeting the needs of the child if taken to tribunal
stage. It was clarified that if it was ruled that the therapy should be
available then the Council would have to pay for it.
Members highlighted that they had received feedback
from teachers that the forms were difficult to complete as the evidence had to
be precise and could the Service assist teachers with this. Officers explained
that they were taking forward a cluster plan to address this issue and schools
were requesting a more flexible approach. Members requested that the SEN governors for schools were also included in this work and
officers took this request on board.
Members were informed that out of county provisions
were very expensive and it catered for pupils with very complex needs, which
could not be met in County. It was highlighted that the number of children
receiving this provision had reduced.
It was explained that reforming the Additional
Learning Needs Services had been deferred as there was currently a consultation
taking place on the Welsh Government proposals, which had taken precedent and
would have an impact on Neath Port Talbot’s Services.
Members noted that there was a lot pressures on the
Inclusion Service and there were budget implications that would have to be
considered. It was noted that where possible partnership working and sharing
resources was considered.
Members recommended that a glossary being
circulated to school governors detailing the terms used in the categories for
children with special educational needs.
Following scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of
the proposal to be considered by the Cabinet Board. In addition it was agreed
that Cabinet Board be asked to consider the following recommendation that a
glossary being circulated to school governors detailing the terms used in the
categories for children with special educational needs.
6.4 Schools Admissions Policy 17/18 Results
of Consultation
(Councillor P.A.Rees
reaffirmed his interest and left the meeting for this item only).
Members were informed that the Neath Port Talbot
Council was the admission authority for community schools in its area and was
required to determine by 15 April 2016 its admission arrangements in relation
to the 2017/2018 academic year. Consultation had taken place on the Admission
Policy between December 2015 and February 2016; consultees
included head teachers and governing bodies of community and voluntary aided
schools within the County Borough, the Admission Forum and neighbouring local
authorities. It was explained that the Admission Forum had considered the draft
policy and changes resulting from the consultation on 23 February 2016.
However, the consultation period had not ended by the date of the meeting and
some further amendments were made following this date, which were before
Members at this meeting for consideration.
Officers provided a verbal update that an amendment
had been made to the draft policy on page 84 that ‘or in the case of admission
to a primary school, the nursery class at the school for which an application
is made’ had been removed. This had resulted from comments from Welsh
Government that the admissions code did not allow nursery placements to be used
as a preferential consideration.
Officers highlighted that the Admissions Policy was
intended for community schools and the Council was not the admission authority
for voluntary aided (i.e. Faith) schools, as they were their own admission
authorities. The Council did undertake some of the administration elements on
behalf of voluntary aided schools, as parents applied through the Council’s
portal.
Members were provided with overview of the
consultations that had been received and the officer responses to them. It was
recognised that as a result of the consultation amendments had been made to the
Policy.
Officers highlighted that the catchment area for
the purpose of admission to community schools had been defined as the
geographical area served by a school, as determined by the Council. It was also
explained that the term partner and feeder school had been interchanged over
the years and the consistent term that would now be used was partner school.
Feeder school was felt to be outdated and hierarchical and some primary schools
had highlighted this as an issue. The definition of the term ‘partner’ school for
the purpose of the admission policy was defined as ‘a school that has a
catchment area in common with another school of the same category’. In
addition, it had been noted that the Home to School Transport Policy and the
Admissions Policy were separate policies but there was an inter-relationship
and this had been noted in the Admission Policy. Officers highlighted that the
Parent Handbook also stated that parents should contact the Council for further
information.
Members noted that the Policy recognised the
inter-relationship between admission and Home to School Transport Policy and it
advises parents to refer to the Home to School Transport Policy when applying
for a place. It was asked if the draft policy detailed which was the nearest
suitable school for all schools in Neath Port Talbot, including faith schools
and how would parents work out which was the nearest suitable if faith schools
did not have catchment areas listed. Officers outlined that the Admission
Policy did not include faith schools and it was only for community schools,
however, the Parents Handbook would include relevant information on how to
apply to faith schools. It was further explained that if pupils attended a
partner primary school it did not guarantee them a place at a partner secondary
school neither did not attending a partner primary school prevent pupils
applying for a place in a secondary school.
Members queried that if St Joseph’s Secondary
School was its own admissions authority then why had the Council previously
included faith schools in the admission policy and now excluded them. In
addition, there had been a list of feeder schools included on the Council
website, which had been removed. Officers explained that faith schools had not
previously been included in the admission policy but there was information
included in the Parent Handbook.
Members noted one consultation response mentioned
that the Policy stated that ‘transport to sixth forms is discretionary and
non-statutory. It is currently available to all pupils who live over 3 miles
from the school’, and asked if students had to pay £100 per annum for a travel
pass to attend St Joseph’s sixth form. Officers explained that this was in
regards to the Home to School Transport Policy and was not in the Admission
Policy. Members referred to an Ombudsman letter that had apparently identified
an issue around clarity on information surrounding the Home to School Transport
Policy and the most suitable school. It was felt that there were similar issues
in regard to catchment areas and partner schools for faith and Welsh medium
education. Officers explained that the term “most suitable” did not apply to
the Admission Policy and that catchment areas had not changed for schools, with
the exception of those affected by the Strategic Schools Improvement Programme.
Members also queried that as there were no Church in Wales secondary schools in the County
Borough this could result in some children not having an established
progression route to a secondary school. Officers took this on board and
confirmed that the pupils would be able to apply for places in secondary
schools through the Admission Policy.
Members noted that in some areas there were pupils
that attended Welsh medium primary schools and there had always been the
presumption that they could then attend either the local English medium or the
Welsh medium secondary schools. It was felt that the Welsh medium primaries not
being listed as partner schools to the English medium secondary schools changed
this. Officers outlined that the catchment areas remained exactly the same and
parents could apply to the school of their choice. It was highlighted that
Welsh medium primary schools could not be partnered with English medium
secondary schools as this did not fit with the definition of partner school.
Officers explained that they could not be listed as partner schools as they
were not in the same category. Members noted that Cwmtawe
had been the only English medium secondary school in Neath Port Talbot that had
Welsh medium primary schools listed as feeder schools, which was part of the
reason for the change to ensure that it was fair across secondary schools.
Officers agreed that the note at the bottom of Appendix 5 in the Policy, in
regards to Partner Community Schools, be highlighted in bold, to make it
clearer that parents could apply to the school of their choice. It was noted
that once officers were aware that a pupil wished to transfer to an English
medium comprehensive from a Welsh medium primary they would be included in the
transition arrangements.
Members highlighted that consultation had not been
undertaken on the term “partner school”. It was felt by some that the
definition could be discriminatory and could be perceived as going against the
advice received from the Welsh Government and Ombudsman letter on most suitable
school. Officers noted that one consultee had
requested a definition of partner school and following this it had been
included in the Policy. It was explained that advice had been sought from
counsel on the Policy. Members asked if the Ombudsman letter, which had been
referred to by some Members, was relevant to the School Admission Policy and
officers explained that it was not as it had been in regards to the Home to
School Transport Policy.
Officers outlined that partner schools would only
be relevant in regards to oversubscription criteria and it was low down on the
list. Other criteria would be considered first, such as, whether they were a
looked after child, catchment area, any siblings in the school and finally
whether the primary school was a partner school. Statements of educational need
were also taken into consideration. It was highlighted that in most schools
there was not over subscription.
Some Members felt that the discussion was being
drawn into Home to School Transport Policy issues and the Admission Policy had
not been in question in previous years and the draft policy in the report was
clear. The recommendation in the report was moved and seconded by Members of
the Committee and the majority of the Committee voted in favour of the
recommendation.
Following scrutiny, the majority of the Committee
was supportive of the proposal, subject to the proposed amendment of the
removal of “or in the case of admission to a primary school, the nursery class
at the school for which an application is made” at point d page 84, to be
considered by the Cabinet Board
6.5 Scope for Long Term Sickness Projects in
Schools
The Committee received the report that detailed the
Long Term Sickness in Schools Project and the implementation of an early
intervention and effective communication methodology pilot within four schools,
before gradually rolling out to all Comprehensive and Special schools, as
contained within the circulated report.
Members were informed that an assessment of school
sickness was undertaken over a year, which indicated that the majority of days
lost were due to long term sickness absence. It was highlighted that the cost
of sickness was not just days lost but also the disruption to pupils’ education
and the cost of providing supply teacher cover. The Project was being
undertaken in order to support school leaders to manage sickness levels,
support staff to return to work and minimise the associated cost. It was highlighted
that a taskforce had already undertaken a central staffing pilot and their
findings identified that where long term sickness absence was addressed at an
early stage, the outcome for both employees and the Council were more positive.
Elected Members had been instrumental in the success of that pilot. The
intention was to build upon this work initially with 12 to 15 schools in four
tranches and to facilitate this work a Human Resources Officer would be
appointed for 18 months on a temporary basis to work with senior management and
bursars in schools. The Service would be working with Trade Unions to utilise
their experience in assisting with this project.
It was confirmed that there would be regular
updates to the Committee. Members agreed that in October 2016 the Committee
would consider undertaking some additional scrutiny work, such as a one day
inquiry, to assist this work.
Members requested a list of primary schools in
group four once they had been confirmed. Members also highlighted that not all
schools had bursars and this should be considered in when rolling out the
project.
The Committee noted that a significant number of
days were lost due to stress related sickness absence. Assurances were
requested that the reasons for these absences would be investigated and the
members of staff who were off work due to this reason would be given support.
Officers confirmed that this was the intended approach and the Project would be
focussing on what support was required. It was also noted that a distinction
had to be made between work stress and home stress and this had been
effectively addressed in the Central Pilot.
It was asked if all teaching trade union
representatives had been present at the meeting of the Local Social Partnership
Group on 8 February 2016. Officers explained that three trade unions had been
represented and one was not from a teaching union. It was noted that during the
Central Pilot there had been good partnership working with Unison and there had
been positive feedback. It was emphasised that the main aim of the Project was
to manage sickness absence effectively.
Members queried if the causes of sickness absence
were monitored and it was confirmed that it was. Members noted that there were
some cases where staff should stay off work until they were completely better
rather than causing further disruption and triggering other procedures by
returning to work too soon and then having to go off again. Officers agreed
that this aspect would be considered as part of the Project.
Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report
be noted.