Agenda item

*Clerks note- The Committee agreed to take the item on the annual schools report first, as the Cabinet Member for Children and Families had another meeting to attend. The minutes of the meeting reflect the order in which items were discussed rather that the order that they were listed on the published agenda.*

The Committee received a report which advised on the outcome of the 2017/18 schools audit programme and of the follow up audits carried out in 2017/18 by Mazars. The report was introduced by Minesh Jani, Head of Audit and Risk Management and was included in the agenda pack at pages 121-130. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families advised that the report represented an improving picture against a very challenging set of circumstances.

The following arose from discussion of the report:

a.    In response to a question on academies, officers confirmed that they were outside of the Council’s school audit process. In response to a follow up question around how Councillors could monitor the assurance level of academies, officers advised that the ESFA were responsible for funding and regulation of funding to non-maintained schools. The AD for Schools and Learning agreed to find out what the processes for academy schools were and whether these replicated the audit processes undertaken by the local authority. This would be fed back to the Committee via email. (Action: Eveleen Riordan).

b.    The Committee raised concerns  in relation to the two schools which had received nil-assurance and questioned what could be done to improve their performance. In response, officers advised that the nil-assurance received by Stamford Hill and Chestnuts was fairly historic and that since the audit was undertaken significant improvements had been made, including changes to the senior leadership team in both schools. The Committee was advised that a new audit would be undertaken in the current financial year, in response to the nil-assurance score, and that officers would update the Committee on the outcome of those audits. (Action: Minesh Jani).

c.    The Cabinet Member emphasised that the schools’ governance arrangements had not stayed static over the last 12 months and that the assurance score was a snap shot of performance at the time the audit was carried out.

d.    The Committee sought assurance that the Haringey schools were not out of kilter with neighbouring boroughs and suggested that the report did not provide any evidence of this. In response, the Head of Audit and Risk Management advised that Haringey’s audit profile was broadly in line with statistical neighbours. The Head of Audit and Risk Management agreed to speak to Mazars to confirm this and would also ask them to produce some benchmarking. (Action: Minesh Jani).

e.    The Committee sought assurances about the role school budgets played in poorly performing schools and questioned whether greater emphasis should be placed on the poor governance arrangements of the individual schools involved. In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that governance and the efficacy of financial procedures played a key role, but reiterated that she felt that the challenges schools faced in relation to changing budgets meant that school governors were being asked to take decisions that they were perhaps unaccustomed to. The Cabinet Member suggested that the two factors were not necessarily dissociated, particularly in terms of the pressures being placed on schools around staffing and resources.

f.     Further concerns were raised by the Committee in relation to poor attendance by school governors to the governance training sessions that were provided. The Cabinet Member acknowledged these concerns and undertook to work with the Head of Audit to set up another session for schools and to also write to school governors to remind them to attend. (Action: Cllr Weston/Minesh Jani).

g.    The AD for Schools and Learning undertook to do an analysis of which schools did not attend the training and whether there was any correlation to those schools which received poor audit scores. (Action: Eveleen Riordan).

h.    The Committee noted that only 58% of audit recommendations were implemented this year and 57% last year, and sought clarification on why this was not 100%. In response the Head of Audit and Risk Management acknowledged these concerns and advised that he would like to see 100% of recommendations implemented in future.

i.      The Committee considered that it was important that schools felt like they could approach the Council for advice and guidance rather than be concerned about being marked down or reprimanded for poor governance.

j.      The Head of Audit and Risk Management agreed to come back to the Committee with an update of what actions were being taken in conjunction with the service to improve on the 58% response rate to school audit recommendations. (Action: Minesh Jani).

k.    In response to a query around the timing of training offered to school governors, officers acknowledged that there were training sessions carried out in the evening and that, in general, the Council would look to offer as much support as possible. 

RESOLVED

The Committee noted the report.