Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Children’s Services.

The report presents the draft 2019/20 Agreement for the new Children, Family Services and Education Portfolio for consideration and comment by the Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to consider and comment on the report.

Officer Contact: Thomas Plant on Tel: 218 1538 or email: thomas.plant@stockport.gov.uk

The Director of Children’s Services submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider the draft portfolio agreements for 2019/20 for the Children, Family & Education Services portfolio. The draft Portfolio Agreements had been developed to articulate the Cabinet’s priorities as set out in the 2019/20 Council Plan and Medium Term Financial Plan and would provide the basis of the quarterly Portfolio Performance and Resource Monitoring Reports.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Family & Education Services (Councillor Colin Foster) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·           There was discussion about early years related activity, including the ongoing roll-out of the reorganisation of early years through the Start Well service; a refresh of the school readiness strategy and steering group to develop a improve foundation stage outcomes; a bid to Greater Manchester Early Opportunities Fund to target early language development.

·           Assurance was sought that there was sufficient capacity available to support the guaranteed training opportunities for school leavers. In response, assurance was given that the Work and Skills Board had a clear priority to ensure that the offer could be delivered.

·           Councillors asked questions about the Council’s response to the CQC/ Ofsted inspection of SEND Services. In response, the development of the Written Statement of Action, overseen by the SEND Improvement Board, was highlighted. This work was being monitored fortnightly, accountable to the Health & Wellbeing Board, and supported by additional resources to improve joint working between partners.

·           There was a discussion about the reasons for the high numbers of children in Stockport with an Education Health & Care Plan (EHCP) compared to statistical neighbours and whether this reflected higher need or differing processes. Stockport had always been an outlier for Statements of Education Need, but following the SEND Review it was anticipated that the total numbers would reduce as partners would improve early intervention through integrated working prior to EHCP assessment. Working more closely with the Clinical Commissioning Group would allow for better analysis of likely need. It was suggested that parents often felt that they needed to purse an EHCP to ensure appropriate support and any efforts to reduce the need for such steps would be welcomed. It was also commented that parental feedback was vital to service planning and improvement and that PIPS had a place on the SEND Improvement Board and parents were involved in most of the work streams.

·           In relation to the SEND Review findings in relation to leadership and the challenges of improving that, it was commented that this reflected the need for greater leadership across the locality, from all stakeholders, including head teachers. The aim was to bring more individual organisation leadership into alignment. The challenge this presented was acknowledged.

·           It was confirmed that the review of SEND Transport was progressing well.

·           Concern was expressed that schools did not routinely test for dyslexia and similar conditions that meant young people were not getting support, with some parents having private assessments in order to access additional support. This reinforced the disparity in support for children of differing backgrounds.

·           Councillors stressed the importance of early intervention and ideally prevention to reduce the likelihood of poor mental health and reduce demand on CAMHS services. A general focus on wellbeing, partly but not exclusively about mental health, was a good example of the preventative approach, but the varied activity being undertaken to support that needed to complement each other. Other examples included a Greater Manchester pilot on Mentally Healthy Schools. A significant number of referrals to CAMHS / Health Young Minds once would not necessarily benefit from these types of acute interventions, so having a tier of integrated support beneath that was the aim, such as the iThrive programme.

·           The disproportionate impact on attendance of a small number of persistent absentees was highlighted, and assurances were given that best practice in other areas was always being considered. The Werneth/ Brinnington Integration programme was highlighted for its work with schools to target particular issues around school attendance and the learning from that project would be shared where appropriate.

·           Concern was expressed about the tracking of children being home-schooled. The Council had increased officer time devoted to monitoring home schoolers, but there were legal limitations on what the Council was able to do and difficulties with assessing the overall quality of that provision.

·           Concern was expressed at the number of young people with SEND needs being excluded and while lower than the national average, it was higher than statistical neighbours and clarification sought on what was being done to protect vulnerable young people. In response, the concerns were acknowledged and assurance given that efforts had been underway with schools, but also to challenge them, to seek to minimise such instances, particularly through develop inclusive and restorative approaches to behaviour in schools or through the managed transfer process.

·           Assurance was sought that despite a small increase in rates of obesity at year 6, work was still ongoing to reduce rates. In response it was stated that the Council had recently won an award for its work on physical activity in schools. Stockport compared well to other Greater Manchester authorities in respect of children’s physical activity, although it was acknowledged that there was always scope for improvement.

·           In respect of external placements it was queried whether the budget and targets set were realistic. In response it was stated that there was confidence that these figures were realistic and activity was subject to weekly monitoring. There was signs that growth was slowing.

·           It was confirmed that the capital programme form the former Education Portfolio had now been transferred to the Resource, Commissioning & Governance portfolio to realise efficiencies in delivering the programme.

The Chair welcomed the inclusion of a glossary of terms in the report, but reiterated previous requests for the performance data to include the actual numbers as well as percentages.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.