Agenda item

The report was introduced by Carmel Littleton, Corporate Director – People, Mark Taylor, Director of Learning and Schools, Jeff Cole, Head of School Improvement (Secondary) and Penny Kenway, Head of Early Years and Childcare.

The following main points were noted in the discussion.

·         The Committee welcomed that the number of young people diverted from the Youth Justice system had increased and the number of first time entrants had decreased. Officers were pleased with the progress made, although warned against complacency.

·         The number of repeat young offenders had increased by 2% compared to the same period the previous year, however, it was expected that the end of year figure would be lower than the previous year.

·         The number of young offenders receiving custodial sentences had increased in comparison to the same period the previous year, from 7 to 15. Officers had reviewed all of the offences and considered that all of the sentences were appropriate given the severity of the offending, which was generally related to violent crime.

·         The number of young people missing from care for more than 24 hours had slightly increased in comparison to the previous year. Officers explained that young people missing from care were almost always with a friend, however there was a concern that these young people were being exploited to commit criminal activity. The council worked in partnership with the Police to track and locate young people missing from care. The Committee requested further details of how many young people missing from care had been criminally exploited.

·         The Committee queried if the young people missing from care tended to go missing from particular residential settings. In response, officers advised that the council only used settings rated as Good or Outstanding. Officers regularly reviewed instances of children missing from care to identify any trends, however this had not raised concerns about any specific settings.

·         The Committee welcomed the high number of young people taking part in the Summer Reading Challenge.

·         The Committee noted the lack of progress on increasing the percentage of 2 year old places in Early Years taken up by low income families, children with special educational needs or disabilities, and those who are looked after. Officers advised that this was a London-wide issue. Islington had a diverse range of communities and it was commented that some communities preferred to be at home with their children or leave their children with relatives rather than access Early Years provision.

·         Increasing the number of young people accessing Early Years provision was a key priority of the service, as local provision was generally high-quality and it was known that young people attending Early Years provision tended to have better outcomes in the longer term.

·         The number of children achieving a Good Level of Development by the end of reception had increased to 71.1%, although was still slightly behind the London and England averages. It was explained that this figure was around 60 - 65% five years ago, so progress had been made in the longer term. It was also noted that children eligible for free school meals achieved a greater level of development than the national average.

·         The Committee noted that levels of persistent absence had not improved. Officers advised that they were treating this as a school improvement issue and were working closely with the schools with the highest level of persistent absence. It was advised that it was often a small cohort of pupils with very high levels of absence that affected a school’s overall attendance level, and therefore targeted work with families was often required.

·         A member queried if there was a correlation between non-attendance of Early Years provision and persistent absence in school. In response, officers advised that the most significant reason for non-attendance was medical reasons, however this covered a broad spectrum of conditions and it was thought that non-attendance was not always justified in all instances.

·         It was commented that fining parents for pupil non-attendance was not always an effective method of encouraging attendance. It was suggested that effective engagement with early help services was more beneficial. 

·         A member provided examples of single parents living in his ward who had advised that they could not get their children to school if one of the child’s siblings was unwell. It was advised that the school should be notified of such situations as they may be able to find a solution to such issues.

·         Following a question from a member of the public, it was advised that some absence from school was due to families taking holidays inside of term time. However, the number of recorded instances of this was fairly small and fines were issued as appropriate.

·         It was noted that there had been a significant reduction in the number of children attending alternative provision in recent years.

·         The Committee considered the gap in attainment between Black-Caribbean pupils and White British pupils eligible for Free School Meals and the Islington average. The attainment gap had widened and work was underway to address this, however officers noted that this was a long term piece of work which could not be resolved quickly. Officers had established an Equalities Reference Group with a diverse membership and considerable experience in equalities issues to review school practices and identify examples of good practice. The council was also carrying out focused work with school leaders; a session on racism and racial stereotyping was held at the Deputy Head Teachers Conference. This session received a positive response and was to be repeated with school governors.

·         A member noted the school-level interventions aimed at reducing the attainment gap and queried how the impact of such interventions could be measured. In response, it was advised that the impact of specific interventions was difficult to measure, but the council encouraged schools to adopt best practice approaches where it was thought that the intervention was effective. It was also noted that academic evaluation of some interventions was currently underway.

·         A member noted that some disadvantaged children faced additional challenges, such as illiteracy, which would have a significant impact on their academic attainment, as well as their life outside of school. It was commented that a recent film, H is for Harry, explored this issue in detail. The Committee considered that the work to address educational inequalities was very important, although the council had to be careful not to stereotype families when targeting interventions.

·         Officers advised that further reading material on educational inequalities would be provided to the Committee at a later date.

·         The number of re-referrals to social care had reduced but was still above the London average.

·         The long term placement stability of children in care had not improved. The council was evaluating the training of foster carers and this work was being reviewed through the Corporate Parenting Board.

·         In response to a question from a member of the public, it was advised that comparative data on exclusions was published nationally.

RESOLVED:

That Children’s Services performance in Quarter 2 2018/19 be noted.