Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th November 2023 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them

The Chair reminded members of the upcoming evidence gathering sessions, as part of the Committee’s review into The Children’s Workforce. This included a focus group with teachers and support staff which had been delayed, a focus group with Human Resources, and a visit to the Islington Foster Carers Association’s Coffee Morning. Members were also encouraged to contribute suggestions for evidence sessions.

The Chair paid tribute to the Director of Safeguarding, Laura Eden, who was leaving the Council after eighteen of years of service, to take up a post in the London Borough of Newham; particular commendations were paid for Laura Eden’s role in overseeing a reduction in the population of looked after children, creating Bright Futures, embedding trauma informed practice and Islington’s motivational practice model in the organisation. Members of the committee also expressed their gratitude for her service, on behalf of the borough’s children and young people.

None.

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.

Officers began their update by stating that they had bought this item to members for information and feedback. The purpose of the item overall was to show the volume and scope of the universal offer, the current environment and the shifts that were underway. This was a draft report and in future, it was envisaged that officers would report on this annually, to scrutiny. In the discussion, the following points were raised:

·       This was the first opportunity to have an integrated Bright Start report, as well as the first time that health data had been incorporated. Officers had also captured the volume of registrations for Bright Start services, activity data and demographic data, which had enabled resources to be shifted as required.

·       There were 697 maternal assessments given to mothers in Quarter Two.

·       The Families First for Children Pathfinder (FFCP) Programme was the result of a children’s social care review by the Department for Education (DfE). Part of the aim was to think about how social care and early help services could be run differently. The government had committed £2 million, for test and learning approaches. In the first wave last year, three or four pilots across the country were given the resource for this. The government had since tested interest for six bids as part of a second wave, for which Islington had submitted a bid.

·       There were several parts to the reform, including reviewing safeguarding partnership arrangements; a major piece of work around social care; the joining together of services and consideration given to running family services differently. 

·       Even if Islington’s bid was unsuccessful, there was now legal guidance to say that the Children in Need service did not need to be operated by qualified social workers, which could for example, include bringing in officers from Family Help. Officers stressed that Horizon Scanning was in place. It had also been ensured that Children in Need services were in the same ward locality format as bright start, bright futures and early help services, but concern had been raised in feedback from the Association of Directors of Childrens Services, regarding how a council would manage monitor risk.

·       Islington had a combined front door, unlike other local authorities. There was minimal transfer and changes of contact, bringing stability to families.

·       Members noted in the key findings, that there had been an increase in children attending SEND groups and enquired as to what that meant for children that then moved into schools. In response, members were told that the SEND groups currently delivered were interventions, which would then be followed by support. The intervention and support wouldn’t necessarily prevent SEND issues, but in the cases of developmental delay, the early support would likely prevent these issues becoming disorders, as the ability to change outcomes was greatest in early years.

·       Members noted that the many families came to Islington for the Bright Start provision, but enquired as to how a family support worker would cope, logistically or financially, with being a lead professional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

The Chair opened the item for discussion first by noting to officers, that the Committee were interested to hear about progress on the ground with specific schools. In the discussion on the item, the following points were raised:

·   Officers highlighted that plans to reorganise, amalgamate and close schools were very difficult decisions and accepted that these would not  be popular, but that the feedback from schools  was broadly understanding of the rationale behind the proposals. In terms of the specific schools affected, officers stated that the proposals had understandably not landed particularly well, given the impact on those schools and their school community. Broadly, however, schools were said to have preferred that  the council was taking decisions swiftly, given the urgency of the situation, with factors such as the cost of living, low birth rate, and the housing crisis, all contributing to falling pupil numbers, the impact of which was being felt by schools financially.

·   Officers were mindful that the conversations they had with affected schools were sensitive and approached it as such, given the direct impact on those schools’ staff and families.

·   Members were told, that while Islington as the local authority can propose closures for its maintained schools, there were complexities regarding faith schools. While officers always aimed to work in partnership with the relevant diocese, there had been instances where this relationship had been more challenging when considering possible school mergers and closures. 

·   Additional complexities included schools obtaining academy sponsors/status. While officers had nurtured relationships with academy boards in the borough, they had no authority to direct academies to close or reform, which impacted on the council’s ability to take a strategic approach to building resilience in local schools.

·   Officers reiterated that these proposals were made with reluctance, and in response to falling pupils in inner London. A significant number of the borough’s schools were one form entry. It was stressed that it was the absolute last resort to propose a school for closure, and there would have been both a strong evidence base in support of the measure, and an exhaustion of all other options before taking this step. Many factors would be taken into account, including capacity in neighbouring schools and the resilience across the entire school estate.

·   In response to members’ questions regarding the inclusion factor, officers stated that they were mindful that most schools in the borough had high numbers of students with SEND  or in receipt of free school meals, and carefully considered the impact to them in their proposals. Officers went on to state that they had explored several variables that could help address the impact on inclusion, but no option was without challenges.

·   The programme was currently in Phase Two and the timescale that officers were working towards, was to take forward the initial proposals. Every school had been RAG-rated, and a letter issued to each, confirming their individual status.  It often had to be explained that a red rating wasn’t an immediate precursor to closure and meetings had taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

The Chair opened the item for discussion. In the discussion, the following points were raised:

• Members expressed concern about school absence, particularly, persistent absence which seemed to be moving in the wrong direction and sought clarification on the issues impacting attendance in those schools. In response, officers stated that there were several concerning factors behind it, and historically, attendance had been poor in the borough, with improvement only seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Officers had been working on a cluster approach, which had included a session where 17 schools had been bought together to share best practice. Schools had also been RAG rated on their attendance.
• Members noted the absence of the white working-class boys demographic, from the data, and other anomalies regarding boys with pupil premiums and boys of Black Caribbean heritage. Officers advised in response that reporting was by exception, and that previous reports to committee had included detailed ethnicity breakdowns at members’ request.
• Fines were not used in punitive ways for parents, but for recurrent offenders such as those that took holidays in term time.
• Research had shown the take up of two-year-old provision had dropped off by 10% since last year, but the expansion of the expanded childcare offer was said by members to be positive and would hopefully attract more providers to offer targeted two year old childcare. Officers clarified that the hourly rate was determined by central government to deliver the offer.

ACTION:

Officers to find time on the work programme for an update of the last three to four months of attendance.

ACTION:

Officers to provide data for white, working class boys, black Caribbean boys and boys with pupil premium funding.

ACTION:

Officers to invite members to the meeting with the Children’s Commissioner.

The Executive Member’s Report had been pushed to the next meeting of the Committee on 26^th February 2024, where there would also be witness evidence from council officers and an update on achievement.

The reporting schedules for the Islington Safeguarding Children Partnership (ISCP) had changed and thus, the annual report would be presented to members in the autumn, which would fall in the next (2024-25) municipal year. 

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.