Agenda and minutes

County Councillor Steen replaced County Councillor Jones and County Councillor Mein replaced County Councillor Wells for this meeting only.

Apologies were presented on behalf of Mr J Withington, a co-opted member representing Parent Governors (Primary).

The Committee is asked to note that at the full County Council on the 24^th May 2012 County Councillor Mrs P Case was appointed as Chair for the following year.

Resolved: That the appointment by full County Council on the 24^th May 2012 of County Councillor Mrs P Case as Chair of the Committee be noted.

The Committee is asked to note that at the full County Council on the 24^th May 2012 County Councillor Mrs S Derwent was appointed as Deputy Chair for the following year.

Resolved: That the appointment by full County Council on the 24^th May 2012 of County Councillor Mrs S Derwent as Deputy Chair of the Committee be noted.

The Committee received a report regarding the above and was informed that in May the full County Council had agreed the constitution of the Committee on the basis of 16 County Councillors plus 5 voting Coopted members and the following nominations had been received regarding membership of the Committee:

County Councillors (16)

Voting Co-opted Members (5)

Mr T Charnock – Representing RC Schools

Mr F Kershaw - Representing CE Schools

Mr K Wales - Representing Free Church Schools

Mrs J Hamid - Representing Parent Governors (Secondary)

Mr J Withington - Representing Parent Governors (Primary)

Resolved:

1. That the current membership of the Committee as set out above be noted.

2. That the following Terms of Reference for the Committee be noted.

1.  To review decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any relevant functions undertaken by the Cabinet collectively, or the relevant Cabinet Members or Cabinet committee.

2.  To make reports or recommendations to the Full Council, the Cabinet or the relevant Cabinet Members or Cabinet committee with respect to the discharge of any functions undertaken by the Cabinet collectively or the relevant Cabinet Members or Cabinet committee.

3.  In reviewing decisions (other than decisions designated as urgent under Standing Order 34(3)) made in connection with the discharge of any relevant functions undertaken by the Cabinet collectively or the relevant Cabinet Members or Cabinet committee, but which have not been implemented, the Committee may recommend that the decision be reconsidered by the person who made it or to refer the decision to the Full Council for it to decide whether it wishes it to be reconsidered by the decision taker.

4.  To consider at its discretion as appropriate Forward Plans prepared by the Leader with a view to determining which, if any, of the proposed decisions it wishes to scrutinise.

5.  To hold general policy reviews and to assist in the development of future policies and strategies (whether requested by the Full Council, the Cabinet, the relevant Cabinet Members, Cabinet committee or decided by the Committee itself) and, after consulting with any appropriate interested parties, to make recommendations to either the Cabinet, the relevant Cabinet Members, Cabinet committee or to the Full Council as appropriate.

6.  To fulfil all the statutory functions of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee as they relate to education functions of a Children’s Services Authority.

7.  To undertake reviews (whether requested by the Full Council, the Cabinet, the relevant Cabinet Members, Cabinet committee or decided by the Committee itself) and make recommendations to the Full Council, the Cabinet, Cabinet committee or the relevant Cabinet Members, as appropriate, on relevant services or activities carried out by external organisations which affect Lancashire or its inhabitants.

8.  To consider any relevant matter referred to the Committee by the Scrutiny Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Members are asked to consider any Pecuniary or Non Pecuniary Interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in relation to matters under consideration on the Agenda.

The Chair reminded the members of the Committee that the Standards regime had changed on the 1^st July and they were now required to disclose pecuniary and non pecuniary interests. There were no declarations of interest in relation to matters on the agenda.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting held on the 13^th March 2012, be confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

Mr Stott, the Director of Universal and Early Support Services, from the Directorate for Children and Young People, referred to the report which was presented to the last meeting and updated the Committee on further developments. Members of the Committee had been provided with a copy of the recently approved Elective Home Education Procedures together with a copy of the final report of the Elective Home Education O&S Task Group.

The Committee was informed that the work which had been done to date around EHE had been recognised at national level as a model of good practice and an Officer from the County Council was to attend the Parliamentary Education Select Committee which was looking at the issue.

Ms Molloy, School Attendance Lead Officer, referred to the various recommendations made by the O&S Task Group and the subsequent developments as set out on page 14 of the report. The work which had been done with the Inclusion and Disability Support Service and representatives from the EHE community was highlighted and it was noted that the need for an additional section within the procedures to clarify instances where support differs for children for whom the County Council maintained a statement of special educational needs had been identified and would be the subject of further discussions.

In discussing the report the following points were raised by members of the Committee.

·  There was some concern that children who were educated at home may not have the same opportunities to socialise with other children in the way that school based education provided. In response Mr Stott stated that for many parents who chose EHE it would be seen to be a perfectly natural way to educate children and would in no way be considered socially isolating.

·  The Chair referred to previously raised concerns regarding safeguarding and noted the comments set out in the report in relation to discussions with the Safeguarding Unit when developing the EHE procedures. Mr Stott stated that a link between EHE and safeguarding could not be assumed and where actions were required to safeguard children who are being home educated they would form part of the child in need/child protection plan whilst any concerns related to the quality of educational provision would continue to be the remit of the EHE team.

·  In order to put the safeguarding concerns into context it was noted that the Task Group report stated that out of 50,000 children who were home educated nationally there had been only two cases involving safeguarding. The different approaches to EHE across Europe were also discussed.

·  It was also noted that under section 175(1) of the Education Act 2002 the County Council had a duty to make arrangements to ensure that  education functions were exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. However, the Act did not give local authorities powers  to  enter  the  homes  of,  or  otherwise see,  children  for  the  purposes  of  monitoring  the  provision  of  elective  home education unless parents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Mr Stott, the Director of Universal and Early Support from the Directorate for Children and Young People presented a further report on the development of Academies.

It was reported that Academies was a legal term which had now expanded to include Free Schools of all types, University Technical Colleges (UTC's) and most Studio Schools which would operate independently of the local authority, and report directly to the Secretary of State

It was noted that in response to the development of Academies the County Council had adopted a clear and consistent position, namely that all categories of school were of equal value and there was no prejudice for or against any particular category.

Mr Stott informed the meeting that the Department for Education (DfE) would no longer publish details of schools which had simply expressed an interest in becoming an Academy. Instead in the future attention would focus on those schools which had already converted to Academy status, were in the process of conversion or where the Governing Body had given a clear indication of the intention to convert.

In Lancashire it was noted that 18 schools had already converted to become an academy, of which 14 were secondary schools and 4 primary schools. A further 6 schools were in the process of converting (5 secondary and 1 primary, of which two are sponsored Academies) with agreed Academy Orders and funding agreements with the Secretary of State being developed for September 2012. The first Free School in Lancashire, which was an independent school, had opened in September 2011 and there were a further two validated new Free Schools wishing to open in the County, both of which were in East Lancashire.

Mr Stott reported that the County Council and local schools in Chorley had raised concerns about proposals to establish a Free School as it was felt that there was already sufficient provision in the local area and the DfE had subsequently decided not to enter into a funding agreement for the Free School it would not proceed.

In considering the report the following points were raised by members of the Committee.

·  It was noted that a University Technical College (UTC) to be established in East Lancashire would offer 14-19 year olds specific vocational and occupational courses in areas such as heavy engineering and look to attract between 500 and 600 students from a 15 mile wide catchment area which would include areas outside of Lancashire.

There was some concern regarding the impact this would have on the previous investment in education provision in East Lancashire and also with regard to the potential affect on transportation. In response Mr Stott confirmed that the County Council would continue to work with the UTC regarding admission arrangements and undertook to discuss the transport issue with colleagues a provide members of the Committee with a written response.

·  It was noted that no other UTCs were currently proposed for Lancashire and Mr Stott undertook to provide members of the Committee with details of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Mr Stott, the Director of Universal and early Support Services, Directorate for Children and Young People presented a report in connection with the above and informed the meeting that the County Council, Schools Forum and individual schools in Lancashire had responded to the Governments consultation on the proposed reform of school funding.

It was reported that the consultation made reference to the possible impact of the Governments proposals around small schools and this had been misinterpreted by some elements of the media to imply that the County Council planned to consult on the future of a number of small schools.  The Cabinet Member for Children and Schools had subsequently issued a statement to correct this misinterpretation and highlight that the County Council recognised the valuable contribution schools in rural areas made to their communities and would do everything it could to help them to continue.

The clarification of the County Councils position regarding the 100 small schools which were likely to be affected by the Governments proposals was welcomed. Members of the Committee also recognised the good work which had been done by officers and the Schools Forum in relation to formulating a response to the consultation.

It was suggested that whilst there was an issue regarding the division of funding between schools there was also an associated issue regarding the distribution of funding between local authorities and this may be something which the Committee could look at in the future.

Concern was also expressed at a perceived lack of communication between authorities regarding changing demographics which had resulted in the County Council reducing primary school provision in Rossendale due to a decline in the local population when the Borough Council had approved housing developments which would increase the population. In response Mr Stott reported that he would raise the issue with colleagues who worked in Capital and Provision Planning.

Resolved: That the report be noted and a further report presented to the next meeting regarding funding of schools nationally in advance of a future report dealing the specific position in Lancashire.

An item of urgent business may only be considered under this heading where, by reason of special circumstances to be recorded in the Minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.  Wherever possible, the Chief Executive should be given advance warning of any Member’s intention to raise a matter under this heading.

No items of urgent business were raised at the meeting.

The next scheduled meeting of the Committee is due to be held at 10.00am on the 6^th November 2012 in Cabinet Room 'C' at County Hall, Preston.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would be held at 10.00am on the 6^th November 2012 in Cabinet Room 'C' at County Hall, Preston.