Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Beevor, Councillor Hodgins and Anne-Marie True.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meetings held on 10 December 2009 and 28 January 2010 attached.

RESOLVED that:

• The minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2010 be received and approved and the Chair be authorised to sign them.
• The minutes of the meeting held on be received and approved, subject to the following amendments, and the be Chair be authorised to sign them:
  • List Charles Hoseason and Paul Leonard as “Parent Governor Representatives”.
  • Minute 56, paragraph 5: Amend to read “Parental engagement was not an indicator at OfSTED, however judgements were made on parental engagement on leadership and management.  It was also noted that work could be done within Quindrats.”
  • Minute 58, first bullet: Amend to read “Level 1 – 5 A* - G GCSEs (or equivalent)”

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

Agenda item 8 - CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE EDUCATION OF SECONDARY AGE CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Councillor Marlow declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Orleans Park School.

Councillor Elengorn declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Teddington School.

Councillor Stratton declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Hampton Community College.

There were none.

There were no Executive decisions called in.

To seek the Committee’s views on the proposals for improving the education of secondary age children with special educational needs as set out in the consultation document.

Report of the Director of Children’s Services and Culture attached.

Officers reported that there had been some delay in starting the consultation because of issues around the Whitton Gateway and Richmond House.  The issues were linked with the proposals to run Whitton School and Hampton Community College as academies.

It was reported that officers would be meeting with the PCT in order to discuss the issues that the recent Lamb Inquiry raised with regard to the provision of speech and language therapy.  The Council was offering many development opportunities to speech and language therapists, in order to help recruitment and retention.  There were also meetings taking place between each organisation’s respective directors, which discussed budgets, as the single biggest issue.  There was a lot in the Inquiry that Richmond was already well prepared for.

Whitton Gateway’s governance arrangements would be transferring to Clarendon School.  Those children attending Richmond House would be on the register of the schools which arranged for their attendance there.

Richmond House’s staffing levels would be confirmed later on when pupil numbers had been finalised. Richmond House staff would be employed directly by the Council.

The Director stated that there was no intention to dilute services at special schools.  He added that budgets would likely increase over time.  There were currently no plans to progress with the federation of Strathmore and Clarendon Schools.

There had currently only been around 10 responses to the consultation, but there was still time to run and more were expected.  Preliminary indications were mainly positive.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To provide an update on the progress of curriculum developments for 14-19 learning.

Report of the Lead Inspector: 14-19 Partnership, Education and Business Linksattached.

Hospitality and Creative and Media Diplomas were being offered at Richmond upon Thames College and Shene School respectively.  The emphasis of the courses was around research and applied skills such as budget planning.  Way to Work was also having a positive impact and there was an apprenticeship event planned to be held at Twickenham Stadium in the autumn term.

It was noted that the Council’s partners were very keen for good, clear and impartial advice and guidance to be offered.

The College’s eventual size was as yet unknown because there were various smaller 6^th forms opening across London.  The Principal at the College was not planning to reduce foundation (Levels 1 and 2) provision.  The provision at the College would however be developed so as to provide the best possible provision for residents of the borough.

The use of sessional workers would be growing because of anticipated financial constraints.  The cost of travelling was also becoming less affordable and the numbers of people who travel long distances to the college would probably begin to reduce.

It was reported that when the statutory school leaving age rose, the 14-19 agenda would become more evident.  With this, it was important to ensure that apprenticeships were not seen as a form of cheap labour.

The committee felt that there should be particular mention of the children in receipt of self directed support.

Parents’ perceptions of the Diploma system also needed addressing.  This was starting to happen as young people began to finish Diploma courses and offer positive feedback on their experiences.  This contrasted against initial negative publicity.

There was a new piece of work underway which looked at matching Diplomas to skills shortages in the area.

Careers advisers and the Connexions service were both available to parents and children and able to discuss other options such as NVQ and BTEC.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

This report sets out details on the proposals for the Children and Young People Plan’s 2009-13 (CYPP) priorities for 2010-11.

Report of the Head of Commissioning, Deliver and Service Improvement attached.

The items included on this plan were not listed in order of priority.

There had been no areas on the previous plan, where Richmond did not meet its targets.  I was recognised that more work was needed on the primary school places issue.

There were over 100 local and national targets in the plan, on which progress reports are prepared for the Children’s Trust Board each quarter.  Each target was intentionally ambitious, but each one was also achievable.  There were some targets set nationally by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which Richmond would not be able to achieve.

With the current economic situation, there was a need to ensure that funding was prioritised accordingly.

Under section 2 of the plan (tackling ‘risky behaviour’) it was noted that Richmond was ranked 23^rd in London.  Richmond was still achieving above the national average, although the London area was also doing so.  Richmond compared favourably to other outer London boroughs.  Work was taking place to look at the national and local trends.

Smoking take-up was higher amongst young women and work was taking place to address this.

Work was taking place around early intervention, which aimed to tackle problems before children and young people were admitted into accident and emergency departments.  There was also work around targeted advice services in known problem areas such as Richmond Green.

Work was taking place around looked after children.

There were very occasional reports of bad behaviour, but Richmond’s schools generally did well.  There were reports of children swearing in public, although it was recognised that this issue is very difficult to tackle.  In order to maintain focus on this issue, it was remaining as a target in the plan.

The Cabinet Member reported that Transport for London were not interested in working with councils to improve children’s behaviour on public transport.

The pupil referral unit (PRU) was no longer available.  It was noted that if children were removed from their school, the Richmond House facility was available.  Sometimes, moving children to a neighbouring school would be enough to help the child.  If a child did switch schools, some additional support would follow them.  Schools were now supportive of this system and back office staff would potentially be transferred to the PRU site.

Schools were currently not measuring unauthorised absence in a consistent way..  This was being addressed, but was not able to be entirely accurate as it relied on each school making a judgement on whether the child’s absence was unauthorised.

The Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP) were involved in giving children places to go.  The RHP did currently provide some activities, funding for which was allocated via the commissioning process.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.