Agenda item

The Chair outlined that they had met with officers to review a provisional work programme to be put to members for agreement and/or suggestions on any further topics that members would like to be considered and that the work programme put to members, contained the standard items of business.  The Chair also reminded members that in suggesting additional items of business, it had to be considered that there had to be sufficient time at each scheduled meeting to consider them and amendments/additions to the work programme was at the Chair’s final discretion.

The Chair also stated the committee was being asked to select its’ principal topic of scrutiny for the municipal year, for which the Chair expressed a preference to focus on the topic of attendance. In the discussion, the following points were raised:

·       Members stated that young people had told them that a topic of concern among young people was mental health support and that many would appreciate further help from the Council.

·       Members suggested looking at the topic of secondary transitions and absences among this cohort.

·       Members suggested scrutinising Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) in the borough and why there were so many children with special educational needs struggling in mainstream education.

·       Another suggestion from members was to scrutinise the youth offer to prevent some of the challenges that our young people have, to work across other departments to see how they could support the youth offer, and to address findings from the youth justice plan that some young people felt that they had no place to be.

·       Members suggested that attendance being a national issue that had also been raised as a point of concern at the previous meetings of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee should be a focus of review for the committee and that the topic could indirectly touch on some of the other issues being raised by members.

·       Members also highlighted the importance of early intervention in addressing attendance and speaking to the children and young people directly in the process.

·       The committee were mindful that there would not be sufficient time within the municipal year to comprehensively scrutinise each topic of suggestion for principal scrutiny in depth, and members needed to prioritise would be achievable and could make an impact. If findings from the principal scrutiny review pointed to other drivers such as mental health and wellbeing, this could then be taken up as a matter of investigation for the next municipal year.

·       Members noted that the work programme was provisional and flexible, with amendments possible later during the municipal year subject to Chair and officer agreement.

·       Members expressed an ambition to see the Council being more collaborative with local businesses, utilising local spaces and services to support schools’ offer and to implement innovative approaches to brokering work experience opportunities.

·       Officers informed the committee that there was work being undertaken on an attendance ‘call to arms’, which would outline that the attendance crisis could not be left to schools to address alone and required a system-wide response.

·       Officers highlighted that the attendance duty had been removed from local authorities several years ago, including the Education Welfare Officer (EWO) post as part of a change in national policy at the time.

·       Officers acknowledged that the borough’s attendance rate still required improvement and highlighted complex emotional-based school avoidance as a particular issue of concern among secondary school girls.

·       Officers stated that one school in the borough had 20% of a single year group affected by emotional-based school avoidance, which was posing a practical challenge to school staff.

·       Officers stated that they were happy to revisit specific areas of the SEND Transitions scrutiny review’s recommendations as and when required.

·       Islington was one of twenty local authorities involved in the SEND Change management programme, which was an opportunity for the borough to test and learn new approaches. One of these opportunities was to introduce a tiered approach to alternative provision (AP) in which the emphasis would be on outreach and preventative work rather than treating Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) as a destination.

·       Members also suggested including in the scope of review, looking at the numbers on the waiting list for CAMHS and those with suspected SEND needs that were awaiting assessments.

·       Members expressed an interest for the Special Guardianship item to address what the Council’s offer for its special guardians currently entails.

ACTION

Officers to provide a further update on the implementation of the recommendations of the 2021-22 SEND Transitions scrutiny review.

ACTION:

Officers to provide data on the correlation between attendance and exclusions, specifically how many children at secondary school have been excluded/suspended because of their attendance. 

ACTION:

Officers to investigate whether public health data on the waiting list for CAMHS and SEND assessments for Islington families, including the number on the list, the average waiting times, and impacts of this, to members.

ACTION

Officers to provide the SEND update and information to the meeting of September 2024 rather than January 2024.

ACTION

The Chair to attend a meeting of the Homes and Communities Scrutiny Committee to contribute the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee’s views to their 2024-25 scrutiny review.

ACTION

Officers to move the Special Guardianship report to the committee’s meeting in November 2024.

RESOLVED:

That with the amendments above, the 2024-25 Work Programme and scrutiny topic on attendance be approved.