Apologies were received from Councillor Blakemore and Councillor Montague who were substituted by Councillor Harrison and Councillor Mathias. Apologies were also received from Mrs Mirrielees.

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 4. Primary School Expansions Strategy

Councillor Chappell declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being a governor at St Mary’s CE Primary School.

Councillor Eady declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being a governor at St Mary’s and St Peter’s CE Primary School.

Mr Lait declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being a governor at Nelson Primary School.

Councillor Martin declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being a governor at Sheen Mount Primary School.

To consider and approve the minutes of the last meeting on 7 October 2010 – attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2010 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

This report details the Authority’s 10-year strategy for meeting forecast demand for high-quality primary school places.

Report of the Director for Education, Children's Services and Cultureattached.

The report was presented by the Director of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services and the Cabinet Member for Schools. The Cabinet Member explained that the Primary School Expansion Strategy offered an opportunity to review the capacity of the borough’s primary schools for the next 10 years. The strategy reflected on the anticipated increase in demand for local authority places and had been created with the assistance of the Environment Directorate. The aim was to focus on the needs of each quindrat and to meet the demand for places within the local area.

In response to the Committee’s questions, the following information was provided:

• The Council had not been made aware of any specific proposals within the borough to create a new free school. However, it was open to any local group to propose the creation of a free school if they could find a suitable location. The Council could provide some support to members of the community if they undertook to create a new school.
• It was estimated that there would be an overall shortfall of places within the borough by 2013, despite the proposed creation of new places as set out within the table at paragraph 1.21 of Appendix A. However, it was envisaged that the authority would be able to meet the expected rise in demand for places in September 2011. This was due to places which had already been created.
• Heathfield schools had been identified as a preferred option for possible expansion as it would be more cost effective to carry out works at a single site. The demand from Hounslow residents was likely to be lessened by the fact that the boroughs would now manage their application processes concurrently. It was hoped that Hounslow and Richmond authorities could work together more closely in future, in order to meet the requirements of families across the borough boundaries.
• The aim was for residents to be provided with a balance of places across faith and community schools. Roman Catholic primary schools were interested in involvement in the expansion programme.
• Though there were existing spaces at Junior Schools, there had been almost no unfilled reception places in the borough’s schools in 2010. It was estimated that the number of unfilled places at Junior level would also decrease in the near future, despite the tendency of many families to opt for private education at this stage.
• The future plans for the Stag Brewery site in Mortlake were not yet known, but the Director was aware that any large residential development would impact on the number of required primary school places. This would also be the case for any new developments in Twickenham. If development were carried out in gradual stages this would allow the authority to manage the demand. Developers could contribute to the authority’s additional education costs via section 106 agreements, but these contributions would not be enough for a new school.
• The Council liaised with neighbouring boroughs to co-ordinate demand for places. It was anticipated that school expansions in North Kingston would alleviate the demand for places in Ham. However, less than 10% of the borough’s primary school pupils were placed outside the borough.
• Pressure for primary places was acute across South West London. Richmond was considerably closer to meeting its targets than other authorities, but more funding would be required in order to satisfy demand.

Members of the Committee emphasised their concern that the medium term demand for high-quality places was planned for. The Director of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services assured the Committee that the pressure areas for 2012 were being identified and officers were considering how best to provide further places.

It was RESOLVED that the report be noted.

This report outlines proposed changes to the Local Authority (LA) governor appointment process and details how the borough’s representatives on Academy Councils will be included.

Report of the Cabinet Member for Schools attached.

The Cabinet Member for Schools introduced the item and emphasised the importance of having a formalised process for the appointment of local authority governors. It was proposed that decisions on appointments would be made by a panel of three members who would consider recommendations made by the Cabinet Member for Schools.

Members of the Committee highlighted the importance of scrutinising decisions. It was debated whether a panel system would provide adequate opportunity for this as it would not be possible to call-in the decision. However, it was noted that as with other committees, the panel would compromise members from more than one political party, with membership based on the political proportionality of the Council.

The Committee noted the importance of a continued dialogue between the Council and the schools in relation to their requirements from governors. It was also important to distinguish between governors appointed by the local authority (LA) and community governors. Community governors could make valuable contributions to a school’s board, but it was useful for LA governors to represent the knowledge and experience of the education authority.

It was explained that some schools may wish to interview potential governors, however, in the case of Councillors, it was felt that this would be less necessary as a Councillor had already been elected to represent the community. A governing body would not be able to veto a candidate but they could request removal of governors based on poor attendance records. It was reiterated that it would be necessary to ascertain the requirements of each school and match these to potential candidates before the decision was taken to the panel.

It was RESOLVED:

1)      That the proposal to form a panel to consider LA governor appointments be noted.

2)      That in relation to the draft terms of reference, the following comments be forwarded to Cabinet:

§         The terms of reference should state explicitly that the panel would be the final decision maker in the process of governor appointment.

§         Some members of the Committee expressed concerns that the decision making process should include further checks and balances.

The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has been developing a clear strategic and delivery framework to ensure that children, young people and their families are identified and offered support at the earliest opportunity. This has included a range of preventative services which have been bought together to work in a coordinated and joined up way to ensure efficient and effective interventions take place in a timely manner.

This paper outlines these services and the impact they are currently making on the outcomes for children and the potential cost savings for the future.

Report of the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth & Children’s Services attached.

[Mr Hoseason was not present for this item.]

The Head of Protective and Preventative Services introduced the report. He emphasised the importance of preventative services as part of an ‘invest to save’ philosophy. This was a specialist area of work and recent research had identified a gap in provision across the country. Richmond was developing an approach based on the quindrat model whereby networks of schools and youth centres worked together to provide preventative services. A common assessment framework was being used which involved six steps. Children and Young People would be classed as ‘stepping up’ and ‘stepping down’ within the system depending on their needs at any point in time. The Council was keen to provide the right support at the right time.

In response to questions, the Committee was provided with the following information:

·        The common assessment framework (CAF) was based on national guidelines but layers had been added to it at a local level.

·        The aim was to create a single gateway for referrals to Children’s Services in order to monitor how and when services were provided. This would ensure that the right team was being accessed at the right time.

·        Initial indicators showed that the new service was having a positive effect and requests for help were being met. The Initial Response Team was reducing levels of avoidable contact.

·        The preventative services would impact on all children in the borough’s schools, by giving disruptive school pupils the right level of support in order for them to remain in mainstream schools without having a negative effect on other pupils.

·        The Council’s early intervention strategy meant that there were now 3.5 (FTE) primary mental health workers in the borough who were focusing on mental health issues for children under the age of 12. This was a pilot project due to be completed in March 2012. It was hoped that tackling mental health issues at a young age would reduce the need for intervention at a later point.

·        The introduction of multi-agency teams aimed to reduce the gap between schools, social services and health providers via a Single Point of Access (SPA). A lead professional was responsible for each child meaning that their needs could be monitored. A secure, shared ICT system was used to collect and retain data for each child. 

·        The proposed change to health care commissioning meant that the relationship between Children’s Services and GPs would need to be strengthened further. It was vital to encourage local partners to invest in the scheme in the long term.

·        Alongside all other areas of the Council, Children’s Services teams were reducing the number of full-time staff in order to meet budget requirements. However, frontline services were being protected wherever possible.

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services congratulated officers on the work that had been done on the project.  The Committee added that they were pleased to hear about the initial success of the scheme and in particular welcomed the information that the borough had significantly lowered the number of student exclusions from schools.

The Director of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services suggested that the Committee could review the work of the SPA in December 2011.

It was RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To highlight areas of performance in Education and Children’s Services that the committee may wish to investigate further.

Report of the Head of Culture and Service Improvement attached.

[Mr Hoseason was not present for this item.]

The Head of Culture and Service Improvement introduced the item. The Corporate Performance Report was overseen by the Finance and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It was noted that the National Indicator 44b, which was flagged as underperforming, related to a very small number of people. For this reason it was difficult to detect a trend in the statistics. It was also difficult to monitor statistics which were set nationally and which relied on self-disclosure. It was hoped that once Richmond had developed local targets this would be more meaningful to review.

National Indicator 63 also involved a low number of people and it was explained the background to this was positive in that many of those involved were due to be adopted in the near future. The Committee would be able to monitor these indicators following the next quarterly report and it was hoped that these indicators would no longer be flagged.

It was RESOLVED that the report be noted.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the remainder of the municipal year 2010/11.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached.

[Mr Hoseason was not present for this item.]

It was RESOLVED:

1)      that the meeting scheduled for the 2 February 2011 be rescheduled to the 7 February 2011.

2)      that the following changes be made to the work programme:

§         ‘Post 16 Education’ item to include linked information about secondary school places. This item be moved from 7 February meeting to 7 April meeting.

§         Home-Start to present an information item at the beginning of the meeting on 7 February.

§         Proposed items: ‘Academies – pending proposals from central government’ to include information on Richmond Council’s local proposals.

§         New proposed item be included - ‘A Commissioning Council: the implications for Education and Children’s Services’