Agenda and minutes

None.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a) Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b)  Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f)   Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

None.

None.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2015 be confirmed and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Attention was drawn to the circulated Early Help Scrutiny Work Programme, and in particular the witnesses that would be presenting to the Committee.

It was commented that a date was being sought for site visits and further information would be circulated to members in due course.

None.

The Chair outlined the procedure for public questions and the filming and recording of meetings.

The Committee received evidence from Elaine Sheppard, Operational Manager of Family Action, during which the following main points were made –

·         Family Action is a voluntary organisation which works in partnership with the Council to deliver the Families First service.

·         The Families First service had been designed to be easily accessible and delivered in a way which removes the stigma of accessing support services.

·         The service had three teams operating in the Borough on a geographical basis. Clients could be referred to the service by the Police, Social Services, Housing, health workers, schools, GPs and other agencies; however around 25% of users had self-referred to the service.

·         As well as supporting existing clients, the service had also conducted outreach work which included visits to schools, drop-in sessions, and delivering parenting programmes in community venues.

·         The service had taken a “whole family” approach to intervention, with a particular focus on children. Service users were provided with support inside the family home, or at a community venue if more appropriate.

·         Ms Sheppard considered the partnership model to be particularly effective, as it has allowed the voluntary sector to work with the Council services most relevant to the particular family to devise a joint action plan. Families often had multiple and complex needs including educational attainment and attendance, social isolation, and difficulties with employment, housing and health, including mental health. Working in partnership had enabled Families First and Council services to take a consistent and coordinated approach with clients.

·         Each family was assigned a family support worker. The role of the family support worker was to provide practical help, advice and support to the family, and challenge clients when needed.

·         Clients and support workers jointly assessed the needs of the family on the “Family Star” assessment tool. This helps to identify the areas in which the family needs the most support and allows progress to be measured.

·         The progress made by clients on the family star had also enabled the service to evaluate its own achievements. Through this tool, Families First was aware that it had been most successful in improving the safety of children, however further work was needed to improve the social networks of clients.

·         The service had also used local authority data to evaluate its outcomes. The performance of the service was reviewed every six months and changes were made as required. Following a query, it was advised that the service had also received anecdotal information about client progress; however this was not collected or evaluated systematically.

·         The service was considered successful, with the majority of clients making good progress on the family star. The service had received positive feedback from clients; in a recent telephone survey 83% clients scored the service as 4 out of 5 or higher for overall satisfaction.

·         68% of families engaging with the service had experienced a reduction in school absences.

·         The service had exceeded its annual target of engaging with 1,000 families by the half-year point of 2014/15. Following a query, it was advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Committee received a presentation from Mark Taylor, Director of Schools and Young People’s Services, copy interleaved, during which the following main points were made –

·         The importance of benchmarking the Council’s education service was emphasised. Performance was considered in a national and London context and aims to exceed the performance of other inner London boroughs. It was noted that the performance of schools in London was generally higher than other areas of the country.

·         Evaluating the performance of schools assists matters of education policy. In particular, it was considered that evaluation helps parents and governors to secure improvements in schools. Supporting governors was a particular priority of the Council as they are well placed to instigate school-led improvement.

·         Islington was one of only six local authority areas in England where 100% of secondary schools are categorised as either good or outstanding.

·         Although Islington schools were achieving good results, the Council could not afford to be complacent as there were still gaps in attainment between schools. Although there were differences between schools, these were not considered significant enough to merit the attainment gap.

·         Attainment was also measured in terms of demography. In some schools attainment was a particular issue for white British pupils, whereas there were attainment issues in other schools among black Caribbean pupils.

·         The Council aspired for every school to be good or outstanding. It was commented that the Islington Community of Schools allowed schools to share knowledge and learn from each other to achieve the best outcomes for local children. It was thought that schools were particularly interested in why the performance of particular departments varies between schools.

·         Persistent absenteeism was being addressed and a target of 96% attendance in every school had been set. It was acknowledged that tackling this problem requires support from parents and governors.

·         A member raised the underachievement of more able pupils, suggesting that an emphasis can be placed on helping less able pupils meet minimum standards in core subjects, as opposed to helping more able pupils achieve their full potential. It was agreed that all schools should ensure that there was an equal motivation for helping pupils of all abilities across a broad range of subjects. 

·         A member suggested that the 60% of pupils attaining five or more A* - C grades at GCSE level (including English and Maths) was not good enough and queried what mechanisms were in place to help schools improve. It was agreed that the attainment of different cohorts should not significantly vary and it was explained that training was given to help school governors challenge headteachers on these sorts of issues. Best practice in teaching was shared between headteachers at meetings held twice per half-term. It was noted that one meeting per half term was chaired by the local authority, and one meeting was chaired by a headteacher. It was emphasised that the most successful schools have headteachers engaged in teaching and learning.

·         Following a query, it was confirmed that the best teachers may be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Noted.