Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to this meeting, which was themed around children and young people, including Councillor Mitzi Green, Children’s Services Portfolio Holder, Councillor Brian Gate, Portfolio Holder for Schools and Colleges, and Julia Rammelt, Co-opted Member for the Roman Catholic Diocesan Education Service.

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 8 – Transfer of Harrow High Schools to Academy Status

Councillors Tony Ferrari, Jerry Miles, Sachin Shah and Stephen Wright declared personal and prejudicial interests in that they were governors at high schools which were converting to Academy status.  They would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.  Councillor Stephen Wright also declared a personal interest in that his wife was a teacher at a Harrow school.

Councillor Sue Anderson declared personal interests in that her son was at one of the high schools which was converting to Academy status, and she was a member of UNISON.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Ann Gate declared a personal interest in that her husband, Councillor Brian Gate, was the Portfolio Holder for Schools and Colleges, with responsibility for this issue.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Brian Gate, who was not a member of the Committee, declared a personal interest in that he was a Governor of a primary school, which was not converting to Academy status.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – School Place Planning in Harrow Schools

Councillor Ann Gate declared a personal interest in that her husband, Councillor Brian Gate, was the Portfolio Holder for Schools and Colleges, with responsibility for this issue.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Tony Ferrari declared a personal interest in that he was a governor at a primary school which had taken one of the ‘bulge’ classes.  Councillor Mitzi Green, who was not a member of the Committee, also declared a personal interest in that she was a governor at a primary school which had taken one of the ‘bulge’ classes.  They would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rules 17, 15 and 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution) respectively.

Report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services

The Chairman having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and left the room, the Vice Chairman, Councillor Paul Osborn, took the chair.

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services, which set out the context, history, Harrow Council response and work undertaken relating to the transfer of seven Harrow high schools to Academy status.

It was reported that Harrow had embarked on one of the largest transfers to Academy status in the country, and the Portfolio Holder for Schools and Colleges, who was present, stated that this had required a huge effort across the Council.  He was very proud of the officers and what had been achieved.  He was also pleased that procedures had been put in place and lessons learnt from the process, which could be drawn on in the event that other schools wished to transfer in the future.

Members expressed surprise that so many Harrow high schools had wished to transfer given that the Council had historically had a good relationship with its schools and had provided them with good quality support.  They questioned the reasons for this and whether any primary schools had expressed an interest in following suit.  The Corporate Director of Children’s Services highlighted that only schools rated by Ofsted as ‘outstanding’, or ‘good’ with one or more outstanding features, could apply for Academy status, and that Harrow was one of few Boroughs with a large number of schools fulfilling those criteria.  She also suggested that there might be a view among the schools that the Authority had spent more capital expenditure on secondary schools in recent years and that future capital programmes were likely to focus on primary schools; the secondary schools might therefore feel that they could secure more funding for capital improvements from central government.  To date, two primary schools had shown some interest in transfer to Academy status.  It was nationally recognised however that most primary schools did not operate at a scale that made transfer financially straightforward.  Primary schools, in partnership with the Council had established the Harrow Schools’ Improvement Partnership in order to support and assist primary schools.

There was concern about the impact on those schools which were not converting to Academy status.  It was advised that schools, including Whitmore High School and the special schools, would continue to operate as a collegiate, for example buying as one group.  If the new Academies changed their admissions criteria, however, this would have an impact.  Members also queried the impact on exclusions policy, and where excluded pupils would be admitted to.  It was advised that officers had had discussions with the Academies that would help to move pupils that were at risk of exclusion, but that a protocol for those pupils who were permanently excluded had yet to be finalised, and this was a concern as there would be only one mainstream community high school remaining.

Members were concerned about the adequacy of the consultation undertaken by the governing bodies considering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

Report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services

The Chairman having resumed the chair, Members received a report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services which set out progress towards delivering a new operating model for Children’s Services from 31 October 2011.

The Corporate Director outlined the background to the re-organisation of Children’s Services, which was driven not only by the need to make efficiencies, but also the changing nature of children’s services, the new relationship with schools and the need to address areas of poor performance.  The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, who was also present, acknowledged that this was a major re-organisation, but stressed that the focus was on providing the best possible services, and having only one point of contact for children and families.

Members considered that this was a high risk project, given the scale of change and the potentially life-threatening impact of any service failures, and that the report should have provided more detail on the risks, in order that Members could be satisfied with how they were being mitigated.  In response, the Corporate Director of Children’s Services stated that she was happy to share the risk register with the Committee, and that the biggest risk was at the point at which staff moved offices.  However, she stated that there would have been huge risks had the re-organisation not gone ahead, as the Department was unsustainable in its existing format:  it had a budget overspend of £2m, there was no appropriate commissioning, and quality assurance mechanisms were lacking when she joined the Department in March 2010.

Members sought assurance with regard to the equalities impacts of the re?organisation.  It was advised that there were two aspects to this: the impact on staff and the impact on service users.  In relation to staff, best practice in HR procedures was being followed.  In relation to service users, equalities impact work had focused on the vulnerable and analysing gaps in services.  Officers were also doing a lot of work on the joint commissioning strategy with the Primary Care Trust to identify inequalities.  Members highlighted the need, however, not only to carry out equalities impact assessments but also to ensure that the resulting information was submitted to the decision-makers, in line with the recent Birmingham judgement.

In response to Members’ queries, clarification was provided on the scope of the re-organisation, and a detailed structure chart was tabled.  Excluding special needs transport, over 300 staff were affected, and the re?organisation was likely to result in the loss of 12 FTE staff.  In addition, some staff had already been lost the previous year due to savings and there would be a further reduction in the Achievement and Inclusion Service, in light of the transfer of some schools to Academy status.  The Department had a budget of £40.8m, which included purchasing a whole range of services such as foster carers and placements, besides staffing costs.  The Department would continue to provide the same services but be organised more holistically: for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

Report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services

Members considered a report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services which set out the processes for school place planning in Harrow, detailed the Greater London Authority (GLA) School Roll Projection Service, and outlined the proposed school expansion programme, in the light of a projected significant shortfall in school places over the next few years.

A Member queried, given that applications had been above GLA projections for the last few years, the risk that the Authority would not be able to provide sufficient school places had not been identified in the risk register.  He also felt that the information on performance implications was lacking, for example, providing no information on the impact on schools’ performance of opening ‘bulge’ classes.  The Corporate Director of Children’s Services acknowledged these points and advised that information on performance about ‘bulge’ classes was complex and could be discussed with the schools and the risks would be included on the risk register.  She stated, however, that she had inherited a lot of challenging issues.  The capital programme in the past few years had focused funding on secondary schools whereas the immediate shortfall was in primary places, so officers were now trying to get back to a needs-led position.  In addition, the Council had not historically invested in schools as it had devolved virtually all of the central government funding direct to schools.  The change in the age of primary to secondary transfer from year 8 to year 7 had created capacity in primary schools, but there was still a lot of work to do with primary schools re-classifying classrooms and on costs, with no indication of what the government’s capital strategy would be or how much capital funding would be available next year.

It was noted that the shortfall in places would feed through to secondary level in the 2016/17 academic year.  Members were concerned that the Authority had a duty to provide school places, but that most of the Borough’s high schools would be Academies outside the Authority’s control: any extra classes would therefore require the agreement of the governing bodies.  The Schools and Colleges Portfolio Holder shared Members’ concerns and was of the view that there had been a lack of joined up thinking in government: the policies on the creation of Academies and free schools had not taken into account the statutory obligations on Local Authorities to provide school places.

Officers advised that they were waiting to hear how these issues would be resolved by government, but that the Council would have to look at other solutions besides expanding existing schools, such as inviting the creation of free schools, as the government would not be building any new schools except free schools.  Officers would be talking to a range of providers including the Academies.  It was clear that capital investment would follow place planning.  There was a risk that the Academies would use control over their admissions policies to restrict places, but there was also the possibility that schools would transfer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4B of the Constitution), during the above item it was

RESOLVED: 

(1)               At 9.58 pm to continue until 10.15 pm, and

(2)               at 10.15 pm to continue until 10.30 pm.