Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed board members to meeting, and led a tribute to recently deceased Cllr Tony Hall, former member of the CYP board, followed by a moments silence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman introduced David Hoare, the Chair of Ofsted, and thanked him for agreeing to speak at the board meeting. The Chair further invited the board to engage with David Hoare on current and future work of Ofsted.

David Hoare introduced himself including a short bio of his career, and set out the key issues in the British education system as he sees them:

·        Numeracy and literacy. There are specific problem areas in education e.g. 1 in 5 children leave school without the necessary numeracy and literacy skills employers demand. This leads to low productivity growth by international standards and low social mobility.

·        Britain’s underclass. Britain’s underclass is mostly white, British, and largely concentrated in coastal areas. David used the Isle of White as an example of this, and suggested that the wider public are unaware of this situation.

·        Early years education (0-5 age range). While government is investing in early years education the statistics show a poorly performing sector. The less privileged 20% of society gain little benefit from this investment with mechanisms like child care subsidies largely acting as a subsidy for middle class families. Mr Hoare also stated that failures in 0-5 years education lead to persistent underperformance throughout a child’s schooling.

·        Coordinated effort. David spoke of the need for a coordinated effort between Ofsted, local government, central government, and other key stakeholders, to change the system to help the disadvantaged.

·        Priorities. David spoke of his three priorities 1) Early years education 2) developing good Leadership in schools 3) Re-organisation in FE colleges to stop students failing.

In the discussion that followed, the board raised the following points:

·        Leadership in schools. Members raised concerns of how leaders can be effective in different settings, especially with regard to addressing deficiencies in key competency areas in schools. Further, how Ofsted can address these deficiencies in leadership and governance. The following points were raised:

-       Effective leadership is the vital ingredient needed to address these concerns, and has been shown to turn around failing schools.

-       Teaching as a profession has a deficit of leadership training and no clear pathway from teacher to senior management. This risks losing key talent from the sector.

·        Ofsted’s role. Members stated that it is Ofsted’s role to change the mindsets of people working in education to spur progress. Members further raised the concern of inconsistencies in Ofsted inspections with some being conducted in an adversarial way, and some more constructively. The board stated that Ofsted should be working with schools as a champion of reform and best practice to which the response was that Ofsted have invested in new staff and training and expect to see these inconsistencies lessen significantly over the next few years.

·        Other social factors. The board commented that there are a whole range of social factors which influence outcomes for underprivileged children and that schools are just one of these factors.

·        Ofsted’s position on the White Paper. The board asked David Hoare for comment on Ofsted’s position on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Chair introduced the LGA’s paper analysing the government’s Educational Excellence Everywhere White Paper, and outlined the situation and role that would be left to both local government and parents should the education bill pass. The chair and the board thanked the officers for their excellent analysis of the white paper.

The Board made the following comments:

·        Necessity of academisation. The board expressed concerns that with such a huge investment of public money, the Education Bill doesn’t solve any issues, and the money would be better invested to improve children’s  education.

·        Lack of high quality Multi Academy Trusts (MATs). There is a lack of high quality MATs that can step into the void left by local government should the bill be passed.  So existing MATs would need to expand rapidly to cater for the newly academised schools and that the precedent shows that rapid expansion of MATs leads to failures.

·        Small & rural schools. There are a high number of small and rural schools which will not be suitable for academisation and may close. This variation in school suitability for the process has not been addressed the white paper.

·        Academisation funding. There is no mention in the white paper of where the funding will come from to facilitate this process. The LGA should lobby for government funding towards this end. Further, local government has deficits from capital investment in education which should be passed onto government or MATs with the schools.

·        Elected accountability. Taking control of schools away from local authorities and abolishing parent governors, removes political accountability from schools and risks losing the drive parents provide to delivering excellence in education.

·        Admission policies. There is a conflict in admission policy as local authorities will be responsible for ensuring children’s school places but have to influence over academies policy or mechanisms in this regard.

·        Safeguarding. Safeguarding children is a role in which local government has, and should maintain a key responsibility. This point should be emphasised in the LGA’s paper.

·        Responding to local needs. The board stated that academies, free of local authority control, might be more responsive to local needs and could respond more freely to market conditions contingent the grey areas in the white paper being resolved.

·        Land ownership. The white paper’s proposal to transfer ownership of local government land to facilitate academisation has legal questions which should be investigated.

Decision

The board agreed with the LGA’s line on the education white paper to date and sanctioned a continuation of this approach.

Action

Officers will take account of the above mentioned views of the board for incorporation in the LGA’s lobbying strategy in preparation for the Education Bill’s inclusion in the Queen’s speech in May.

The Chair introduced the original brief the LGA prepared in response to the Educational Excellence Everywhere White Paper, and congratulated officers on an excellent publication.

The Chair introduced the LGA paper analysing the DfE consultations on a proposed new national schools funding formula and changes to high needs funding and setting out the principles that should underpin the LGA response. .

In the discussion that followed the board raised the following points:

·        Funding inequalities. The board commented that some areas will see steeper cuts for schools than others. More money needs to be found by government to equalise this imbalance.

·        Timescale. The timescale should be reviewed as to change the funding formula in the same period as other big changes in education could cause disruption.

·        Funding levels. The board raised the question the paper addresses in paragraph 7 of 90% of schools achieving the level funding determined by the national formula by 2020, and asked how this figure is calculated? LGA officers informed the board that the information should be available in summer 2016.

Decision

The board noted the proposed changes set out in the consultations, and strongly supported the proposed LGA response.

Action

Officers to incorporate the above mentioned comments by the board into the LGA’s response to shape the outcome of the consultations.

The Chair introduced the LGA paper on the Department for Education’s four year strategy for adoption, and asked the board to express its views on the strategy and the LGA’s response as outlined in the paper.

In the discussion that followed, the board raised the following points:

·        The courts. Many of the issues of delay in relation to  adoption are associated with the courts, including court closures.

·        Case complexity. Specific cases can be extremely complex and be subject to prolonged court hearings. Government does not allow for these difficulties which can distort the average figures for the speed of adoption completion.

·        Collaborative working. The board highlighted the importance of creating an expert group to advise the DfE and the DfH on adoption and mental health support, especially post adoption.

·        Foster care. The board recommended that the LGA do some comparative work on the different outcomes for children in foster care, and the link between fostering and adoption. Further, that work on the long term funding for special guardians, and the increasing role for special guardians should be included.

·        Best practice. There is not enough lead member engagement in regional bodies which is a missed opportunity for sharing best practice.

Decision

The board noted the governments approach to adoption and supported the LGA’s strategy and response as outlined in the paper.

Action

Officers to incorporate the boards above mentioned views into its response to the DfE’s 4 year strategy on adoption.

The Chair introduced the report and asked the board for any comments the LGA’s work highlighted in the paper.

In the discussion that followed the board raised the following points:

·        Review of safeguarding. There are delays in publishing the review due in part to purdah.

·        Education and youth offenders. The board agreed that education is a key element to reducing youth offending.

·        Child sexual exploitation. The board reported on a request from Ofsted to produce six weekly reports on child exploitation, and commented that this will take vital resources away from a range of other important areas.

Decision

The board noted the report.

Members agreed the minutes of the previous meeting on 15 January 2016.