The Glass Room, Hethel Engineering Centre, Hethel

DRAFT

NOTES

Wednesday 27 January 2010,9.30 am – 12.30 pm

The Glass Room, Hethel Engineering Centre, Hethel

Present:

Barry Payne, Representative of NASSH (left at 4.30pm)

Andrew Berry, Representative of SNAPP

Sue Cooke, Representative of JCC (Teachers),

Colin Collis, Representative of JCC (Teachers),

Lisa Christensen, Director of Children’s Services
Fred Corbett, Deputy Director, Early Years, Schools and Communities

Shelagh Hutson, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services

Martin Sale, Representative of NGN

Sarah Shirras, Representative of SNAPP

Mike Smith, Representative of JCC (Teachers)

Elly Starling, HR & Organisational Developmental Manager

Caroline Ross, Clerk

Apologies for absence
Stephen Adamson, Representative of NGN, Ashley Best-White,
Representative of SNAPP, Caroline Brooker,Representative of NASH,
Peter Devonish, Representative of NASH, Lucinda Poliakoff,
Representative of NGN, Meera Spillett, Deputy Director, Prevention, Early
Intervention and Specialist Services.
2. / Approve the Minutes of the last Meeting – Monday 24 November 2009
The minutes were approved.
3. / Matters Arising
Ofsted inspections – Fred reported that the original designation of Special Measures given to Rackheath Primary has been overturned with a ‘Notice to Improve’ following an appeal.
2 Primary Schools and 1 High School remain in Special Measures.
Children’s Services Officers have received feedback from concerned Headteachers informing them that there are a number of inconsistencies in the inspection process. Lisa and Fred have shared these concerns with the Lead HMI where evidence exists.
Cluster Governance – Fred agreed to bring a report to this meeting at the end of term. Lisa asked Martin Sale for feedback from Governors. Martin reported that feedback would be available after this evening. Martin was sensing that there was no appetite from the west of the county and felt that this was partly caused by no one individual within the cluster being given responsibility for taking this forward. Martin also reported that he had sent out letters asking for feedback, but he had received little response.
Lisa/Fred offered to meet Norfolk Governors’ Network if necessary, to ensure Governor and Cluster engagement.
Sarah Shirras felt that it was important to ensure that the size and relationship between headteachers was taken into consideration. She also felt that no funds should be devolved to clusters where arrangements are not in place. Longer term consideration should be given to looking at the possibility of linking those SpecialSchoolpupils with their local school community rather than the school they currently attend. Barry felt this would be very difficult because of the number of pupils attending Special Schools from outside of the cluster. The benefits of the cluster model are minimal for special schools because of the size. Fred agreed to look at Special Schools separately. Fred also invited clusters to contact Peter Simmonds/Tim Newton if there were structural changes to be discussed.
Health related issues – following a conversation with Meera, Barry reported that it was likely that health professionals would be visiting some schools. There still needs to be an analysis carried out on life limiting cases. Lisa advised that it was likely, through the Organisational Review, to see some joint commissioning posts created with Health and Children’s Services.
Building Schools for the Future – Interviews for Programme Director will take place on 9 February 2010. / FC
4. / NCC Organisational Review
Lisa provided the political and budgetary context for the NCC Review. Price Waterhouse Coopers provided challenge to the County Council on overall structure. Process coincided with Children’s Services need to review our structure which had been developed 5 years ago. Services such as HR, ICT, Procurement, Policy and Performance functions will be integrated to provide corporate business services. Lisa urged colleagues to read the Organisational Review Committee report taken to Cabinet on 25 January 2010.
There will be no significant changes to Children’s Services. However, there is a requirement to make a minimum saving of £1.5 million in the next financial year. Children’s Services will be strengthening its approach to commissioning and area delivery. 10 officers in Management Team currently, this will be reduced to 6 officers. Children’s Services is committed to ensuring front line delivery continues by working with the district councils to provide coterminosity of arrangements. There is also a strong commitment to ensure we have a framework in commissioning arrangements around age and stage universal services, 0-5, 5-11, 11-19. Commissioning will link with the Children’s Trust.
Lisa invited initial thoughts on what has worked well over the last 5 years and what hasn’t. A consultation paper will be distributed to all staff within Children’s Services as soon as possible.
Fred highlighted those tensions that can exist between a centralised and area working structure. He felt that the organisational review will strengthen the clarity of the Policy and Commissioning role and will ensure consistency across the operational services.
Fred listed three main principles:
i)Need to have a secure system in place to ensure School Improvement and Safeguarding issues are addressed.
ii)Build a Children’s Services Infrastructure which ensures that Operational Services work better.
iii)Need an organisational structure that ensures integration and communication across all localities.
The following points from members were noted:
a)Clear terms of reference should be drawn up for all groups to ensure that agenda items are not replicated.
b)Need to ensure that the structure is built around the existing locality working rather than drawing up new locality boundaries.
c)Softening the boundaries of Commissioning will enhance networks, but there needs to be Contract Support Services available to help Headteachers.
d)Whilst some members felt that the area working structure is important, other members felt that the ‘whole family’ approach was paramount to access services easily within their local geographical area.
e)Opportunity to enhance the services currently offered and move towards a regular user-based assessment to look at quality.
Andrew wondered whether the parameters of the local areas will be based on the District Council boundaries. Lisa felt that it was more likely to segment the county into three, rather than identify boundaries.
With the shared services moving centrally, colleagues raised concernthat the expertise and relationships with LA colleagues could be diluted. Lisa felt this was an opportunity to provide better services than exists currently.
Lisa reported that a letter will be sent to NASSH, SNAPP, JCC, NASH seeking their views.
5. / Urgent Items from Associations
NASSH

• The membership of groups and key outcomes for children – Barry advised that there was a concern about the number of representatives being asked to sit on working groups and project boards. It was felt by NASSH that there needs to be a clear ‘outcomes for children’ indicator attached to each, so that NASSH can judge the value of their attendance.
  Fred hoped that all meetings taking place within Children’s Services would have a clear outcome for children and that there would be times when the LA would like teacher/governor involvement. Fred reported that it was an expectation for all working groups/project boards to have a remit. Fred to chase.
• The complexity and access to ‘Safeguarding’ training – NASSH felt it was not clear what training was expected of schools and staff to meet the safeguarding requirements. Information is not clear on website and it is difficult to access courses.
  Fred referred to the Safeguarding and Equalities website for schools which clarifies the statutory requirements and the new Section 5 Ofsted criteria. Schools may also wish to refer to the Training requirements grid reference sheet for school staff which sets out clearly the training required.
  

Terry Cook is working with Vicki Lowry to developa training post that will also provide advice and support to schools.
Group B Training – training is organised by Children’s Services Learning and Development Team. It is for those designated members of staff in school who have never received any previous safeguarding or child protection training.
Safeguarding in Education (for designated professionals) – Designated staff must attend this course bi annually.
Working Together to Safeguard (Multi Agency – Norfolk Safeguarding Board). This course is organised by NSCB.
Fred also reported that Children’s Services has been contacted by the regional representative from the NAHT enquiring whether they could use materials developed on the safeguarding website for Norfolk as part of their professional development activities. / FC
6. / Consultative Groups
- ICT consultation for the BSF programme and all Norfolk Schools
(Item 5a)
Fred referred to the above paper seeking agreement from members on the way Children’s Services proposes to consult on procurement for an ICT county wide managed service for all schools and providers 5-19. It was noted that NASSH is missing from the Partnership Board. Fred to check whether it was possible to replace the ICT Partnership Board with the Service Improvement Board but this maybe a BSF specification requirement.
Sue Cooke raised continuing concerns with regards to E1. Sue referred to an excellent presentation she had seen by the Atlantic group.
- Primary/Secondary Funding Formula Review (Item 5b)
Fred brought the Funding Formula Review to the attention of members for information. Any queries relating to the project should be referred to Martin Brock. / FC
7. / School Closure
-School Closure
Following a number of issues raised from schools and members of the public concerning school closures during the period of adverse weather, Fred has been asked to write a report for Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Fred reported that a small group were meeting to reflect on the views raised.
The report sets out the statutory position with regard to trying to keep schools open. There will be a recommendation to work with schools to ensure they have a Business Continuity Plan. Fred reported that he had written three documents for circulation to schools:
i) overall guidance about rules and regulations including
- academic review days;
- phased entry;
- training days.
ii) A statement based on the email from Teachernet, reinforcing the message that schools should remain open.
iii) DCSF guidance on E-based learning during long periods of closure.
Governing Bodies should be in a position to challenge the decision of Headteacher if necessary. The LGE has disseminated advice on school closures.
Andrew pointed out that the LA County website worked well. However, the reasons inputted need to be more succinct.
8. / Date of Next Meeting
Wednesday 24 March 2010, 9.30 – 12.30 (Room 22, Professional Development Centre)

___

cr1

27.01.10