Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received for the Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families, Councillor Ngongo

There were no substitute members

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

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th February 2023 and the Chair be authorised to sign them

The item was noted by the Committee and the Chair thanked officers for providing the additional data requested

The Chair noted that there had been several productive meetings recently, including with care-experienced young people from The House Project and young people known to the Youth Justice Board.

An evidence-gathering session had also taken place with the library service, for which Councillor Jegorovas-Armstrong was thanked for the suggestion for its inclusion.

Further visits scheduled this week include New River College, Platform, and online calls regarding Detached Youth Work and Disability Action Islington.

None.

For members of the public to ask questions relating to any subject on the meeting agenda under Procedure Rule 70.5. Alternatively, the Chair may opt to accept questions from the public during the discussion on each agenda item.

None.

The Director of Children’s Services, Jon Abbey, presented this item to the Committee, the report for which had already been circulated prior to the meeting. Key points noted during the update included:

• The 6% uptick in take up of free early child education places for eligible two years old, highlighting growth in population
• There have been talks with CMST regarding more work and exploration about take up regarding youth play and adventure playground offer.
• The numbers of looked after children was reducing, Islington had historically high numbers and possibly one of the highest rates in London. 401 was recorded in the summer of 2022-23 but was down to 351 for Q3, and as of Friday (17^th March), it was 327.
• Children’s contact – there had been a reduction in the numbers recorded.
• Persistent absences for primary and secondary, the provisional data is higher than it would have been in previous reporting periods. There was an action plan being put in place by Pupil Services, targeting those schools marked as red/amber, increasing efforts to bring pupils back into school and make them visible.
• There had been encouraging performance from Young Islington in preventing young people from being victims or perpetrators of crime. For the metric of young people being diverted away from the criminal justice system, there was strong performance with a 96% rate recorded for Quarters 1 to 3 compared to the previous year

In response to questions from the Committee concerning the quality of judgements made by inspectors and whether it should be continued to use as a metric, the Director of Children’s Services responded by stating that Ofsted rulings had always been very subjective, but that for any individual or organisation in a position of authority and/or responsibility there should be accountability and that Ofsted was part of that established framework of regulation.

In response to questions from the Committee concerning the Progress 8 score and reducing disparities for the Black Caribbean cohort of children, the Director of Children’s Services Jon Abbey noted that Islington’s ambition was to being the top quartile of performance and that performance was benchmarked against London data. Many contributing circumstances were cited such as certain subject’s weightings, and the means in which schools approach the curriculum for their students. The Director of Learning and Achievement, Sarah Callaghan, also told the Committee that the Key Stage 4 attainment rate had increased by 7%, and that Islington’s secondary schools had one of the highest performance rates over the last three years.

In response to questions from the Committee on repeat looked after children, the Director of Safeguarding and Family Support, Laura Eden, told the Committee that the audit had been completed, and that there were two sets of data on this within the report, the first data set was quarterly, showing that there were three repeat looked-after children in Q3 and the other data set was cumulative, with the figure being less. The themes behind these cases included children becoming re-looked after, having been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

The Committee had been circulated the report on the 2017/18 Vulnerable Adolescents scrutiny review prior to the meeting, providing an update on the current position; the Committee had previously heard an update in 2019.

In response to questions from the Committee about whether there had been closer with housing partners, the Director of Safeguarding and Family Support informed members that the Housing department had been active partners at the table for at least the last few years. Housing officers are present at child protection, call groups and contribute fully to the management safety plan for families. Their input could include, but not limited to, facilitating a move either within and out of borough, securing pre-existing accommodation such as fixing broken gates, windows, or conducting any general alterations to the premises. Staff who had contact with vulnerable adolescents had also been given training

Members were also told that historically when safeguarding vulnerable adolescents, it was sometimes considered in certain instances that relocation out of borough was sufficient enough, but national data has shown this to not be the case. It was important to also consider how to keep families safe if they elect to remain in the borough as well.

In response to concern from the Committee that the eligibility bar for adult social services was so high that there was a risk that these children got lost in the cracks, members were told that when a child has been in care, a legal duty of care was given to them until the age of 25. Members were also told that support continued to be offered to young people transitioning from care that needed it, for a longer time. There was also provision of support from commissioned providers such as WIPERs and St Giles Trust, as well as transitional projects funded through MOPAC however more funding was trying to be secured.

Members were told that it was understood that safer schools were essential, and recently a meeting had taken place to address the safety of children leaving school premises at the end of the day, in light of a recent spate of incidents, and to launch the Safer Schools Protocol. There had some recruitment issues within the borough’s command unit, so there were slight gaps in the support they could provide. Additional resource had been put in place through commissioned organisations and non-uniformed police officers also. There are six school safety officers, and each school had a point of contact. 

ACTION:

Officers to circulate the Safer Schools Protocol to members of the Committee.

In response to questions from the Committee about training on trauma-informed practice and whether we’re all schools across the board were buying into that programme and not just local authority-maintained schools, members were told that over 50% of schools were fully trained in iTIPs (Islington Trauma Informed Practices) which required a two-year commitment. A high standard was required to complete that programme and regular supervision meetings with the authority take place. Two academies were potentially joining the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

The Committee was informed that an agreed syllabus had been implemented in Islington for all schools, faith schools and maintained schools, which would be in-place for five years as it was the duty of SACRE to update the syllabus every five years.

New information had been included on data from the recent census, and there were also some new units of work reflecting changes in the approach to how Christianity is taught in the modern world. There were also a good set of lessons on Humanism and what that meant for the community going forward.

All schools are also provided with the accompanying scheme of work on fidelity to faith, to ensure that world faith is being taught accurately, and professional development continues to be provided to the borough’s schools.

There was an issue around recruitment and strengthening the SACRE board, to ensure the diversity of faith and non-faith representation remained, and how to improve the numbers of students taking Religious Education at GCSE.

The Committee were circulated the report prior to the meeting and as part of the update were informed that

·       Significant progress had been made against the 14 recommendations, and that the focus has shifted.

·       New guidance had been issued in September 2022 around behaviour

·       It was felt that a corner had been turned since November 2022.

The Chair of the Committee thanked officers for what was described as tremendous improvement, citing the decrease in exclusions from 111 to 17, and that Islington-maintained schools were doing a tremendous job with inclusive practices.

In response to questions from the Committee about whether New River College were in receipt of extra resources to manage extended support to schools, members were informed that they were funded and particularly for outreach work.

Members were told that unfortunately the same groups were overrepresented in absence and low attainment, particularly Black Caribbean boys, and increasingly Black Somalian cohorts also. The increase in girls being excluded was also highlighted as a concern

Members were told that the Mother Tongue & Supplementary Schools Partnership is one of the routes in which they address the risk of isolation to other cultures to students who have been withdrawn from mainstream schools and placed in faith schools

In response to questions from members of the Committee whether there was any follow up on the young people who were permanently excluded, members were informed that there currently small numbers and that alternative arrangements were made individually for their further education. A dedicated officer oversees this and checks in with their future pathways.

In response to questions from the Committee concerning the increase in exclusions among Black Somali children, and what the reasons were, members were told that it was difficult to ascertain, but that generally the reason behind most exclusions was persistent disruption. The London Borough of Camden did some work on the disproportionality of Somali children being excluded. The critical point was noted that parents were caught off guard by how quick the escalation took place, with the action not being communicated with them fairly. This had led to increase guidance and training being put in place to improve communication and involve families at critical junctures where they felt hadn’t been before.

In response to questions about whether New River College was conducting outreach at all schools, members were informed that it is working with all schools except one academy. New River College was also recognised nationally as good level of alternate provision.

Members were told that less time was spent talking to Governors about excluding and more time was spent talking about how to include. Nonetheless, guidance stipulated also that zero-exclusion is not a safe route to take either.

In response to questions from members of the Committee about getting more data to tackle the rise in exclusions among the Black Somali cohort and bringing a tangible example of how to work with these groups, it was agreed that a response would be provided on the scrutiny tracker to present to Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Noted