Tri-Borough Chairs of Governors Forum

Tri-Borough Chairs of Governors Forum

5th October 2016 at 6.30pm

Westminster City Hall, Westminster

Attendance:

In attendance:

1. Welcome and Introductions

Father Amos informed that he attended the previous meeting on 17/05/2016, however, his name was not on the list of attendees in the meeting minutes.

Action: JS to make the correction.

1. SEN Update by Fiona Phelps (FP)

FP introduced her role and the role of KS and suggested structuring her part as a Q&A session.

Q: There seems to be a big delay in completion of EHC Plans and this is causing a lot of concern.

A: FP acknowledged the delay. The transfer from Statements to EHC Plans has been a very challenging task for the SEND Team. A EHC Plan is required by law to be a result of collaboration between various parties, i.e. parents, Social Services, health partners, etc. It has been a challenge trying to keep up with the pace of all the collaboration meetings. There has also been a change in what information should be recorded on EHC Plans. There hasbeena strong emphasis on identifying outcomes for each child/young person now as opposed to just listing their needs. Every EHC Plan should be making a difference to the child’s/young person’s life and it has to be clear what exactly we are trying to achieve by putting in support.

Q: It would appear that the transfer from Statements/LDAs to EHC Plans has to be completed by 2018. Will the deadline be met?

A: Every child with a Statement will need to go through the transfer process which technically is a re-assessment of their needs. Most of the children/young people with Statements will end up with EHC Plans.However, it is also expected that some of them will have made progress. Children/young people with LDAs will have to go through a similar process. It is acknowledged that re-assessments of learning disability needs are very detailed assessments.

The DfE has given some extra time for the completion of the transfer as there was recognition that the deadline may not be met. Should there still be some outstanding work by the time of the deadline, it is felt that it would be very unlikely that the DfE would allow those children/young people to lose their support only because they have not gone through the transfer process in time.

The Tri-Borough has also released additional funds for recruitment. The team had requested funding for 10 additional key workers to assist with the transfer process. Funding for 5 has been secured and 3.5 posts have now been recruited to.

Q: Has there been direct dialogue with the DfE about the unrealistic deadline?

A: There is a DfE Adviser available to the team who visits once a term, which is the team’s opportunity to pass feedback. There is a view that some of the local authorities had not been very honest about their figures, which may have influenced why the current deadline was agreed.

Q: From personal experience, it would appear that the transfer process in different local authorities is different and not as time-consuming as in the Tri-Borough.

A: There is a lot of guidance about the transfer; however, there are no set rules for all local authorities. This would explain the differences across them. The SEND Team is dedicated to giving Plans that are meaningful and that make a difference.

Q: Has there been a change, nationally or locally, in numbers of assessment requests?

A: There has been an 8% increase. There has been a big increase in the number of requests particularly for children under 5. Such increases further lead to budget implications.

It is worth noting that previously Statements would become invalid once a child left school. This is no longer the case as a young person with needs will now have a Plan until they are 25. This change in the legislation has had an impact on the increase in assessment requests.

The budget is stretched. Transport costs for children/young people with SEN has had a huge implication on the funding.

The SEND Team has faced a lot of challenges. For example, there has recently been a restructure in services. The team provides a very complicated service and they are not always able to control their external partners.

To better manage the workload within the team, two additional deputy managers have been recruited. KS is one of them and she is responsible for the casework-related side of the service. The other deputy focuses on relationships with external partners and quality assuarance issues. There is also a clinical officer in the team (OT by background) and a SEN Liaison Social Worker. The Social Worker helps EY and Social Work Teams to look at children’s needs and to identify desired outcomes (child’s, family’s, etc).

Q: In view of the lack of funding, what is the impact on special schools?

A: A lot of work is being done to try to bring the money back from out-of-borough schools. Every child’s case is looked at individually. Often, older children’s needs could be met locally. Work is done with their families around these options. This would help to reduce transport costs significantly. Those children/young people who could be placed in mainstream schools with support from outreach services, should be placed there. This would free up places in their special schools for somebody who really needs it.

Q: With regards to special schools in the 3 boroughs, are there enough of them? Do we need more?

A: There is a view that the more special a school is, the more quickly it gets filled. Work is done looking at the resources available and at how they can be used more effectively. Some of the resource based schools have evolved and they can now meet more needs.

Q: With regards to taking children with SEN back to mainstream schools, there is a concern that this puts a lot of pressure on some of the schools. Less popular schools usually have vacancies which are often filled by children with SEN, which often is an unequal distribution across all other schools. This makes such schools even less popular and they ‘are sinking’.

A: It is acknowledged that this is a real challenge and there is no easy answer to this. The legislation is clear that children are allowed to go to mainstream schools. Schools may choose to provide evidence why they are not able to take on these children. However, if parents decided to appeal and take this to the Tribunal, they would be more likely to win the case.

Q: There has been a case whereby a child, in addition to having no command of English, was unable to sit on the floor unaided. More time is spent on having to nurse such children instead of educating them, which is an issue. This also has an impact on the progress of other children as the staff’s time is taken away from them to be spent on nursing children with needs.

A: As already mentioned before, the legislation is very clear about children with SEN going to mainstream schools. This will be the case unless the child has had a EHC Plan Assessment. Until that is done, the school should be meeting the child’s needs as per their contingency plan.

Any specific thoughts/ideas on how to resolve this are welcome.

Q: What is the general view of the levels of teaching quality across all schools, including special schools?

A: A lot of work is being done on how to tailor teacher training more effectively. Outreach services are available to support the current work of teachers. Part of the governors’ role is to raise awareness of their schools’ training needs.

1. Director’s Update by Richard Stanley (RS)

• A reminder to refer to the letter that was sent out by Ian Heggs, Director of Education, at the beginning of the term. It was sent with a number of key documents that would be a good point of reference.

• This academic year’s first issue of the Governors’ Newsletter has recently been circulated by JS. This contained a lot of useful information.

• Thank you to all schools – staff as well as governors – for the good work that they had done over the previous academic year. The last year was a difficult one considering all the changes. Schools have shown good achievement, especially in secondary schools in English and Maths. There is a very positive picture across all schools in terms of standards.

• The local authorities encourage moderation between schools. There have been very good examples of schools working together and sharing good practice.

• Schools achieved very good performance results in the last academic year, all above the national average.

• The main points of the White Paper and the Green Paper were summarised. The Green Paper is a consultation paper and responses to it are welcome until 12th December 2016. RS encouraged schools to submit their responses to log their views and concerns.

In view of the push towards academisation, RS encouraged all Chairs of Governors to initiate discussions in their schools to see which of the other schools they could link with.

The National Funding Formula (NFF) is expected to be implemented in 2018. It will be the focus of the Governors’ Conference in February.

There seems to be an emphasis on developing areas outside of London, coastal towns and areas in the north of the country, and on London sharing its best practice.

More information about the above will be available in the slides that will be circulated after the meeting.

Q&A with RS

Q: There seems to be a difference in KS2 and EY teaching. In RBKC, teaching seems to be better.

A: The assessment process for these is different. Work is being done to improve the quality of assessment. Many other factors could be impacting on this, e.g. intake of children, children with SEN, children whose native language is not English, number of pupils eligible for free school meals, etc.

Q: How many of the schools with Good/Outstanding judgements were inspected in the old regime, and could the outcomes be related to the level of funding that each school receives?

A: Some of the schools were indeed Ofsted-inspected under the old regime and they have not had a more recent inspection.

The judgements that schools received were a result of several contributing factors such as their strong leadership teams, dedicated governors, the schools’ ability to attract new teachers.

It is recognised that retension of good teachers is a real challenge at present as many younger teachers tend to move further away from central London, for example, to start a family. The implementation of the NFF may bring further changes.

Q: Is there an update on faith schools forming or joining MATs?

A: It is the role of Diocese to advise on their preferred model of how they would like this to happen. However, it is quite likely that faith schools will be joining MATs.

1. Governor Services Update by Jackie Saddington (JS)

• DBS Checks:

• All governor appointments should be confirmed subject to DBS checks. All governors appointed before 01/09/2016 should have had their DBS checks in place before that date. Those appointed after 01/09/2016 should have applied for DBS checks in 21 days.

More information about this was included in the recent Governors’ Newsletter.

If there are any queries about the process or about the results of the checks, advice is to refer to the relevant DBS Team.

• It is important to check newly appointed governors’ IDs to ensure they are the right people when they visit the schools.

• Governors and school staff should be mindful using social media carefully.

The meeting queried what security checks schools had to do with regards to their agency staff.

Action: JS to seek advice from Hilary Shaw.

• Safeguarding:

• Safeguarding and Child Protection Policies at each school need to be reviewed regularly.
• Safeguarding training should be valid for three years.

Action: JS to check with Hilary Shaw to confirm this.

• Safeguarding training for governors is available every term. Some dates are coming up later in October.
• If there are any queries on this, governors should contact JS.

• Data Management:

• Schools should only collect data that is purposeful, valid and reliable.
• The data needs to be easy to understand and supported by simple graphs. If governors feel this is not the case, discussions need to take place with the schools’ leadership teams.

• Sports Premium:

• This will be increased from the next academic year.
• Ofsted will want to know the impact of the Premium on schools.

• Clerking:

• When the schools’ own clerks are not available to assist with meetings, JS’s team is available for support.
• When clerks send out exclusion letters, they need to provide sufficient information. If the letters are not detailed, the Review Panel might question this.
• JS’s team holds a termly clerks’ briefing which is open to all clerks.

More information about the above will be available in the slides that will be circulated after the meeting.