An opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Councillor Elin Weston, on developments within her portfolio.
Minutes:
Councillor Elin Weston, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families reported on key priorities from her portfolio as follows:
· She was keen to build on the progress that had been outlined in the OFSTED inspection report of 2014 in services for Children in Need of Help and Protection, Looked After Children and Care Leavers. It was important to ensure that services were safe and sustainable and able to progress to being rated as “good”. She was pleased that a progress report on the issue had been included in the Panel’s work plan for the year. There was a lot being done on this issue this would include work with Aspire, the borough’s children in care council, to ensure the voice of the child was heard;
· She wished to work towards the authority becoming a “child centred” Council and welcomed the Panel’s intention to undertake a review on the issue. A key part of this would be ensuring that, where children and young people received help from the Children and Young People’s Service, their voice was heard and taken into account throughout. The would also be about the Council, on a corporate basis, taking into account the needs of children in all areas of its work;
· A new strategy for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities was to be developed;
· The 30 hours free childcare offer for 3 and 4 year olds was due to implemented in 2017. There was, as yet, no details of the funding arrangements and it was likely that a major piece of work would be required prior to its implementation; and
· In respect of schools, the Government’s academisation agenda was still a major issue. In addition, there was to be a change in the national funding formula in two years time which would affect schools significantly. The specific details of the changes were not yet known but work would be needed to maintain strong and supportive links with schools and governors;
She responded to the Panel’s questions as follows;
· There was considerable concern regarding the recent large increase in demand for social care. The figures for May were double the number of contacts from the same month a year ago. The precise reasons for the increase were not known and a lot of work was being undertaken with partners to establish them. Contacts from the Police had gone up by 234% whilst those from schools had increased by 183%. Jon Abbey, Director of Children’s Services, reported that similar increases had been experienced elsewhere and the work was focussing on getting a better understanding of demand. It was noted that referrals were often very complex in nature and required a range of interventions with families. A number were child protection referrals and had resulted in the need for care proceedings to be taken. A temporary additional team of social workers was being brought in to alleviate the pressure. It was hoped to have greater clarity on what action could be taken to alleviate demand by the next meeting of the Panel;
· Current data suggested that there was sufficient nursery provision within the borough to satisfy demand. Not all of it was necessarily in the right place though. This had resulted in some nurseries having places whilst others needed to have waiting lists. The market was being looked at to see what could be done to address this effectively;
· Work was being done by the Commissioning Team with partners in preparation for the introduction of the 30 hours free childcare offer for three and four year olds. This had included workshops with providers in order to find out more about the range of provision and what support was required. In addition, a survey on parental demand was currently being undertaken;
· In respect of refugee children, there was a rota for their allocation that was operated by Croydon Council on behalf of London boroughs. In addition, young people who presented within the borough became the responsibility of the Council. There were currently 26 unaccompanied children who were over the age of 15 who were being cared for, as well as 29 children who were being dealt with the by Leaving care team. Refugees came from a variety of countries including Afghanistan, Eritrea and Pakistan. No account was taken of the existence of local communities when allocating children to particular boroughs. There was a shortage of appropriate accommodation and it has been necessary for the Council to place children wherever suitable accommodation could be found. There were plans by the government to distribute refugee children more evenly across the whole of the UK;
· When refugee children reached the age of 18, if they were granted leave to remain from the Home Office they were entitled to leaving care services. If they were in employment, education or training, they were supported until the age of 25. If they were not, they were supported until the age of 21. If leave to remain had been granted up to the age of 18, assistance would be given by the service to the young person in their application to the Home Office to secure their status;
· Home Office legislation took priority over the terms of the Children Act. The new Immigration Act made it clear that local authorities would be breaking the law if they continued to support individuals who had not been allowed to stay. It was agreed that a recent report on immigration issues for looked after children that had been submitted to the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee would be circulated to Panel Members.
· Refugee children general needed a range of services, including ones relating to care, accommodation and education. They did not necessarily have specific additional needs. However, if they had been exposed to trauma, this could take time to manifest itself. Trauma could be a specific issue in respect of Syrian refugees;
· Exam performance at Key Stage 4 for looked after children was in the top quartile for London boroughs and the top 10% for the country as a whole. However, the service was still very ambitious and wished to improve performance further. In particular, there would be a focus on improving attendance and the completion rates of personal education plans. It was agreed that the annual report of the Virtual School, who provided educational support to looked after children, would be circulated to Panel Members.
· All secondary schools in Tottenham were rated by OFSTED as being either good or outstanding. Haringey 6th Form Centre had recently been inspected by OFSTED and rated as good. There was a new principal at the Centre and there was confidence that the improvement would be maintained. The College of North East London (CoNEL) had also been rated as good by OFSTED and provided a range of courses. They were currently aiming to promote an increase in apprenticeships. Tottenham University Technical College (UTC) was to close in October 2017 and was not taking any new students but would continue to teach a small cohort of young people who were currently there. As the result of a partnership between Tottenham Hotspur and Highgate School, it was proposed that a new 6th Form would be developed called the London Academy of Excellence (Tottenham). This was currently being consulted upon and had the support of the Department for Education. It was intended that it would emphasise academic excellence and serve the immediate area around Tottenham, with at least 50% of places reserved for local young people. The decision to seek to establish the Academy was taken by Tottenham Hotspur and Highgate School and the authority had no control over this process. It was noted that all post 16 provision was to some extent selective in nature.
· She was aware that a decision was taken in 2007 to focus ‘A’ Level provision in Tottenham at Haringey Sixth Form Centre. It would now be difficult for any current school in the area to expand into sixth form provision and she was not aware of any plans for them to do so. However, it would ultimately be a decision for governing bodies to make. The Panel noted that the responsibility of the local authority was limited to ensuring that there were sufficient places, which there currently was. Schools were autonomous and local authorities had only very limited influence over them.
· Panel Members expressed concern at the current lack of 6th form provision in Tottenham and were of the view that, if necessary. the Council should exert what pressure it could on schools to remedy the situation. In answer to a question, the Director of Children’s agreed to find out the exam performance at Key Stage 4 by young people who had transferred from the John Loughborough School to Park View Academy.
· In answer to the placement of looked after children, it was noted that efforts were made to place them within the Council’s own fostering provision in the first instance and then through independent fostering agencies. However, some young people displayed very challenging behaviour or did not want to be placed in a family setting and in such circumstances residential accommodation could be considered. The service was dealing increasingly with children at risk of sexual exploitation or involvement with gangs and in such circumstances they could be placed away from London for their safety. Efforts were made to bring them back in due course but this was not always possible. Specialised provision for children and young people could also be outside of London. In addition, the Courts could remand young people to custody and place them in any secure setting that was available, irrespective of its location. The Council had no control over this but nevertheless was responsible for meeting the cost.
AGREED:
That the following be circulated to the Panel:
(a). The Annual Report of the Haringey Virtual School;
(b). The report on Immigration Issues for Looked After Children, which was submitted to the Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee on 4 July 2016; and
(c). Key Stage 4 performance statistics for those young people who transferred from the John Loughborough School to Park View Academy.