Apologies for absence were received from Mr Hoseason.

This item is an opportunity for current members of the committee to declare their interests.

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 “EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES”

Ms Sanders declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2011 – attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2011 were received and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them.

This report seeks the formal appointment of two Parent Governor Representatives.

Report of the Senior Democratic Services Officer attached.

Mrs Christine Gooch and Mrs Rowan Woodward were confirmed as Parent Governor Representatives for a maximum of four years.  They were welcomed onto the committee.

This item is an opportunity for newly appointed Parent Governor Representatives to declare their interests (subject to their formal appointment by the committee).

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 “EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES”

Mrs Woodward declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign.

This report gives updates on progress against the Council’s principal educational priorities.

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

Providing sufficient numbers of high-quality secondary school places

The Cabinet Member for Schools and the Director of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services introduced this part of the item.

The report gave details around the administration’s main priority work areas and listed progress made toward each one.  The priority areas were primary school expansion, post-16 education, improving secondary education and converter academies.

It was reported that the issue of a potential Catholic secondary school resided firmly with the Diocese of Westminster, as they were responsible for formulating any proposals and following the statutory process for establishing a new voluntary aided (VA) school.  The Director stated that the Archdiocese was not seeking to open a faith academy as this would limit the number of places they could reserve for Catholic children.

Mr Jeremy Rodell was invited to speak to the committee on behalf of the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign (RISC).  He said that there had been no consultation on, or decision, regarding the Council’s choice to support the introduction of a new faith school; the Council appeared to be acting outside of the set process.  He added that a recent consultation undertaken in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames could be used as a template for one in Richmond upon Thames.  Mr Rodell said that the Archdiocese did not have to enter a competitive process, should it be seeking to open a new school.  This was in contrast to the route which the Council must take, should it wish to open its own new school.  Mr Rodell asked the committee to demand that this process be halted to allow for consultation and formal decision to be undertaken by the Council.

Following questions from members of the committee, Mr Rodell confirmed that the consultation the RISC was calling for would give residents the choice between a Catholic secondary school or a community one.  He added that the Administration’s manifesto stated they would work for a Catholic secondary school, but that it also said they would “consult first, act second”.  Mr Rodell felt that these were conflicting statements and the latter was not happening.

Charlotte Wilkinson Prior was invited to speak to the committee.  She said that she disagreed with paragraph 4.2 of the report as she felt that a school which excludes 90% of the local population would not release places at other local schools.  She was concerned that this decision would have a long-lasting effect on the borough and that her two children would miss out on the opportunity of a quality community school.  Ms Wilkinson-Prior felt that the Catholic population were already catered for, as there were a number of out of borough, yet still local, schools to be chosen from.

Following a question from a member of the committee, Ms Wilkinson-Prior said that schools were not facing an issue of choice, but one of capacity.

Councillor Hodgins, said that there were no firm proposals for the Clifden Road site to be a Catholic secondary school, which meant there was nothing to consult on at this stage.  He said that the Archdiocese of Westminster was currently applying to the Secretary of State, for permission to open a voluntary aided secondary school.  Should they get permission to do so, an Archdiocese led consultation would be instigated as part of the statutory process.   Councillor Hodgins said that the establishment of a Catholic secondary school within the borough was an important element of his party’s manifesto commitments around increasing choice in schools.  He agreed that all children were entitled to a quality education and stated that other work was taking place to improve the quality of the borough’s community schools.

The Director confirmed that there were no firm proposals and reported that the Clifden Road site was not yet in the Council’s possession.  He said that there was long-standing pressure from the Catholic community, who had been pushing for an in-borough Catholic secondary school for a number of years.  He added that there was a need to further improve the achievement in the borough’s secondary community schools and that increasing capacity in a system where there was already space would be detrimental to achieving this aim.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·        No key decision had been taken regarding the type of secondary school to be introduced.

·        The only decision taken regarding the Clifden Road site was an in-principle one to purchase the site, subject to various legal agreements.

·        Consultation would take place at the appropriate point in the process.

·        The schools listed in the section of the paper regarding sixth forms were part of an initial feasibility study, which focussed on looking at whether existing school sites could house sixth forms.

·        Richmond upon Thames did not yet own the Clifden Road site; there were various agreements and legal processes to go through with the current owners.

·        Purchasing the site followed a different process to that of buying a private residential property.

·        The Archdiocese of Westminster had made an ‘in-principle’ application to the Secretary of State, to form a school at the Clifden Road site, should it become available.

·        The Archdiocese, by law, had to make a proposal to the Secretary of State; Richmond upon Thames was unable to do this.

·        The process by which the Archdiocese could open a new school was strictly governed and involved public consultation

·        If the Archdiocese gained permission to open a new VA school, the Council would enter negotiations to lease the site to the Archdiocese for a peppercorn rent.  This would be done via the Council’s decision making process.

·        The Council could look at whether it was content with the consultative measures the Archdiocese had carried out at the appropriate time.

·        The Clifden Road site was very accessible, being only a short walk from Twickenham Station.

·        Opening a new community school at the present time would be detrimental to improving the quality of all the borough’s secondary schools, as a local system with lots of additional capacity affected budgets and morale.

·        Around 200 local children gained places in London Borough of Hounslow Catholic schools each year.

·        The Clifden Road site could be a self-contained three-form entry secondary school, although this could be increased to five-form entry if additional sporting facilities were found off-site.

·        It was unlikely a new VA school would impact on the neighbouring schools of Orleans Park or Waldegrave.

·        The new north Kingston school was a consideration, as this was likely to have a significant impact on Grey Court’s capacity, freeing up more spaces for Richmond upon Thames children.

·        Free schools were also being considered, as this may make more places available to Richmond upon Thames residents.

·        The eventual aim was to have quality schools across the borough, all of which were at near capacity.

·        The Director had been in discussions with the Archdiocese, but he stressed that these discussions were not linked to the Clifden Road site.

·        A larger than usual number of children whose families had only selected Catholic secondary schools had been unsuccessful in getting their child into any.

·        Next year’s demand was yet to be predicted, as this year’s school place take-up figures had only recently been available.

·        The Director had never had to take short notice reactive measures to increase capacity in Richmond’s secondary schools, as at present there was excess capacity.  This was in contrast to primary admissions, where there were capacity issues.

·        The expected additional uptake of secondary places because of the recession had not materialised.

·        Parental perception of schools could be measured by the number of first choice options for each.

·        There had been very few demands for an all boys school, which was expected as they typically did not achieve as highly as they did in mixed schools.

·        Faith academies were currently not welcomed by any Roman Catholic Archdiocese Board, as they limited the number of faith places.  This was expected to change in the future when various issues had been resolved between them and the government.

·        The Catholic population in Richmond upon Thames was estimated to be around 12%, with 11.6% of primary places offered by the borough being in Catholic schools.

·        The Cabinet had not committed any funding to the Clifden Road site, aside from the money needed to purchase it.  Funding options would be explored, should the Council be in a position to open its own school at a later date.

·        If the Archdiocese was unsuccessful in opening a new VA school, the Director would not, at this time, recommend opening a new community school as this would harm improvements being made in other borough secondary schools.

·        It was not possible to predict what portion of places would be taken by Catholic children in any new school, although the Cabinet Member said that the committee would be able to see information about school places mapping at its next ordinary meeting.

·        Free schools were likely to be fairly small establishments.

Some committee members were concerned that a Cabinet Key Decision had been taken in relation to offering the Clifden Road site to the Archdiocese of Westminster, without following the correct decision making process.  They drew attention to the content of the Archdiocese’s application to the Secretary of State, which some felt showed the Council was actively engaged in discussion with the Archdiocese.

The Cabinet Member and Director assured the committee that they would have discussions with the Archdiocese of Westminster regarding the content of their application to the Secretary of State.

Creating sixth form provision on school sites

The Cabinet Member for Schools and the Director introduced this part of the item.

They said that the schools listed do not currently have building space to support a sixth form provision.  Academies would be responsible for making their own decisions, although they would be encouraged to participate.  There had been discussions about the range of subjects each sixth form would offer, although it was reported that many sixth forms operated in consortia, so that they could offer a larger range of subjects.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·        If the Council could demonstrate that there is demand for sixth forms, it was likely that the temporary surplus capacity would be funded by the Young People’s Learning Agency.

·        There was strong parental demand for sixth forms, which had grown in recent years.

·        Secondary schools that had sixth forms were in a better position to push children further, as they could start high achievers on AS Level work at an earlier stage.

·        Teacher recruitment and retention was typically better in schools with sixth forms, as it provided them with the opportunity to teach up to A Level, which was good for personal development.

·        Richmond upon Thames College was being undermined by the ending of the Education Maintenance Allowance.

·        Attendance at Richmond upon Thames College was falling because sixth form provision was being increased in other boroughs.

·        Waldegrave School in particular was expected to have a popular sixth form.

·        Each year around 800 borough children entered Richmond upon Thames College, around 250 entered Esher, and the remainder went to other colleges in the surrounding area.

·        Sixth form provision was not expected to increase the percentage of out-of-borough children being educated in Richmond upon Thames.  This was because sixth forms tended to increase the number of in-borough children remaining within the local area, instead of moving to colleges elsewhere.

·        At its most popular point, Richmond upon Thames College had around 4700 students learning there.

·        The criteria for offering places in each sixth form would be determined by individual schools.

·        The admission criteria for sixth forms was usually based around subject choice, with more popular ones having more demanding requirements such as 5 A*-C GCSEs.

Enhancing the freedom of schools through academy status

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·        Each academy’s funding came directly from the Department of Education.

·        The Local Authority holds a ‘sinking fund’ for its schools, although this had been reduced over time.

·        The statutory responsibility for monitoring and driving up school standards resided with the Local Authority; this was not the case with academies.

·        The Council was working with every school in order to improve standards.

·        The Cabinet Member felt that accountability in academies was higher than was the case for a community school.

·        Two borough schools were at an advanced stage of becoming academies, with two additional schools at the initial stage.

·        Church schools were likely to change in the future, although there was some opposition to this from Diocesan Boards.

·        More detail was needed about commissioning, particularly for smaller primary schools, where they had less purchasing power.

·        The requirement to co-ordinate admissions centrally would remain.

·        Admission to academies was bound by the School Admissions Code.

·        Richmond upon Thames was an authority which had a high level of delegation to its schools, so the move toward academies was unlikely to result in many council services being lost.

·        It was the choice of individual schools as to whether they were to become academies, although the Cabinet Member felt that there was to eventually be a central government drive, as gleaned from speeches, to make every school an academy.

·        If large numbers of local schools became academies, there was the possibility that central government might try to provide more local accountability.

·        Academies were not bound by the National Curriculum, but were expected to achieve to a given standard.

It was agreed that the sections in the report relating to “Developing community boards within the quindrats” and “Providing sufficient numbers of high-quality primary school places” be brought before the next ordinary meeting.

[In accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17(a)(vi), the meeting was extended for up to a maximum of thirty minutes.]

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

This report provides:

§         Headlines on the recent Key Stage 2 test and results for junior and primary schools; and

§         GCSE and equivalent results for secondary schools and academies.

Information contained in the report is drawn from unvalidated test and examination data for 2011.

Report of the Head of School Effectiveness attached.

The Cabinet Member for Schools and the Head of School Effectiveness presented this item.

Richmond upon Thames was now firmly in first place nationally for achievement at the end of Key Stage 2, with Key Stage 4 achievement improving rapidly.

There had been an issue with the Level 5 English results this year, with some schools returning their papers to the examination board after concerns about the quality of the marking.  Some appeals had been overturned, which meant there seemed to have been a decline in achievement at Level 5 in this subject area.  This had an effect on the combined English and Maths result.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·        The combined English and Maths figure was ‘matched’ to each child; children had to achieve in both subject areas.

·        There was now a new measurement which looked at children’s achievement across a range of subject areas – English, Maths, Science, a Modern Foreign Language and a Humanities subject at Key Stage 4.

·        It was difficult to plot how well children taught in Richmond upon Thames schools had achieved during and after higher education as achievement was a lot of movement between different institutions.

·        There has been an increase in the number of unemployed graduates in Richmond upon Thames, which was a trend being experienced nationally.

·        Boys’ achievement English was generally an issue historically both nationally and locally.

·        White, working-class boys’ achievement was the lowest achieving group.

·        Every child’s achievement was important and their progress was monitored carefully to ensure they were making good progress.

The committee congratulated officers and schools for their hard work, particularly for the greatly improved results at Richmond Park Academy and the reduced gap for children in receipt of free school meals.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

[Mr Cole left the meeting at this point.]

Report of the Deputy Director of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services attached.

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services and the Deputy Director for Children's Services presented this item.

The activity of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board was brought to the attention of the committee; it was noted that their annual report would be brought before the committee at its next ordinary meeting.  Auditing of the service’s records was a main priority.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·        There were currently two inspections of the safeguarding service anticipated, with one unannounced one expected to last two days and another, announced, ten days.

·        The Initial Response Team would be the focus of the detailed two day inspection. The ten day inspection would focus on safeguarding and children looked after.

·        The ten day inspection was expected as there was a commitment to do so before a new inspection regime was implemented.

·        The inspection would look at all aspects of the service, including how elected representatives were involved.

·        The increase in the number of Section 47 investigations correlated to the increase in number of referrals the service had been receiving.

·        The increase in the number of referrals was partly due to the increased vigilance following the Baby Peter inquiry.

·        The increased number of Section 47 investigations was not resulting in an increased number of children on ‘at risk’ plans.

·        A number of children who were at the threshold of being subject to ‘at risk’ plans were receiving additional support in order to ensure they did not meet the child protection threshold

·        Most of the Munro recommendations were expected and Richmond upon Thames was well placed to adopt many of them.

·        The Munro report was suggesting that Local Safeguarding Children Boards be retained.

·        Richmond upon Thames had been judged as ‘outstanding’ for the last five years, with the most recent judgement from the unannounced inspection detailing only two areas which needed developing.

·        The recruitment and retention of social workers was an ongoing issue, particularly in Richmond upon Thames where the cost of living is high.

·        The Council provided a good package of support for its social workers, which was helping with the retention of its social workers.

·        Retention of social workers could not be measured against other authorities, as it was not a statistic councils had to collect.

·        Social work in London, particularly inner London, was an immensely difficult and complex.

·        Social workers were expected to assimilate large quantities of data about each child they were responsible for.

·        Each department was independently challenged on their self assessments.

·        Inspectors would locate incomplete records, although Richmond upon Thames was good at identifying such incidents and rectifying swiftly.

·        The department benefitted from having a stable management structure.

·        Managers were responsible for auditing the records in their own areas.

·        The Council’s own independent inspector would undertake spot checks.

·        The Council was piloting a new system where a senior social worker without management responsibility would act as a mentor to less experienced staff.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the municipal year 2011/12, as discussed with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached.

RESOLVED that the work programme be agreed, subject to the following amendments:

·        That the following sections of the report for agenda item 8 be brought to the meeting being held on 21 November 2011:

• Developing community boards within the quindrats;
• Providing sufficient numbers of high-quality primary school places.

·        That a report for information about secondary pupil places mapping be received.