Agenda and minutes

The Chair opened the meeting at 7:05pm and welcomed Lilian Brooks. Ms Brooks had been newly appointed as the Parent Governor Representative for primary schools.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2017 be agreed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings.

Councillor Moore declared a non-registerable interest in respect of item 4 as the Safeguarding Officer for Lewisham and Southwark College and for her safeguarding responsibilities in her paid employment at Barking and Dagenham College.

No responses are due.

No responses were due.

Nicky Pace, Chair of the Lewisham Safeguarding Children Board

Nicky Pace, Independent Chair of the LSCB introduced the report.

The following points were noted in discussion:

·         The MET dashboard is a visual way of providing clear performance data that can be shared across agencies

·         Consultation on changes to the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children, new child death review guidance and new regulations was open until late December and the Committee was encouraged to respond to it. A link to the consultation would be circulated to Members after the meeting.

·         CAMHS waiting times –the service had been redesigned to focus on clearing the waiting list and was currently meeting demand. There was no wait for initial assessment and the length of wait for treatment depended on need. All treatment was commencing within the 18 week target.

·         Self-harm prevention and suicide prevention protocols were in place and the LSCB was working with schools and others on this priority area.

·         Peer on Peer abuse is a big part of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). The council successfully bid for Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC) funding and a year-long piece of work was commissioned from a national lead in the field of Child Sexual Exploitation, Violence and Trafficking, resulting in several pieces of work to improve the council’s CSE work.

·         Child Death Overview Panel (CDOP) - BME children accounted for 89% of all child deaths. This was disproportionate to the local population and repeated the pattern of previous years.

·         Members felt it would be helpful if the report provided figures on the percentage of BME children in the overall local population as a comparator. BME children make up 74% of school age children in Lewisham. The % BME children in the under 5s and secondary school populations would also be useful to see in subsequent reports. The Executive Director for CYP to feed this back to CDOP.

·         CAMHS outcomes - It was not easy to provide a comparison between Lewisham’s outcomes and other London boroughs. CAMHS outcomes were measured via the Children’s Global Assessment Scale and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, which was a subjective measure. However, as the measures were used across SLAM, Members felt it would be helpful to compare outcomes in Lewisham with Southwark.

·         LSCB Training - The diagram on page 26 of the agenda pack did not capture the large amount of training that was happening in individual schools, agencies etc. For examples, schools are required to provide safeguarding training for all staff, including Chartwells who provide catering services to schools.

·         Performance of the Disclosure and Barring System (DBS) – additional staff had been brought in to clear the backlog and the situation was improving. The backlog was a particular issue for foster care. A risk based approach was being taken in respect of overseas checks.

·         Members asked the LCSB to think about opportunities for income generation through providing training to other boroughs. 3 independent schools were already buying training through the South East London Teaching Partnership for social work with Greenwich and Southwark.

·         S11 self-assessment –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Service Manager – School Improvement presented the report.

The following was noted in discussion:

·         Secondary Heads had valued the additional information from primary schools, but there had been a patchy response from primary schools

·         Information sharing between primary and secondary SENCOs had been successful, with information being shared on vulnerable children (such as those with a Child Protection plan or Child in Need) as well as SEN children to enable strategies to be shared.

·         Not all secondary schools had received a piece of Year 6 writing,. Secondary Heads were supportive of the idea but the writing received had varied in quality and length. Schools would be provided with more specific guidance eg one page of A4, relevant to transition.

·         More work was needed on the secondary transfer form

·         Sessions had been run for Year 5 children who were identified as vulnerable familiarise them with the secondary setting.

·         A Transition training session for governors had been held and the recommendations shared. This had not been well attended.

·         Teaching methods were a matter for individual schools and teachers to decide. Secondary school teachers needed to visit primary schools and vice versa to share schemes of work and best practice across core subjects.

·         The committee asked for a further update in 12 months’ time.

RESOLVED:

That the update be noted

That a further update be scheduled for 12 months’ time.

The Head of Corporate Resources presented the savings proposals.

The committee noted the following:

·         Austerity was expected to continue until at least 2020 for local authorities as local government was not a protected spend area.

·         If the savings could not be met then rejected proposals would need to be revisited

·         It was not envisaged that further savings could be achieved through innovative ways, without exposing the council to too much risk. Savings had been already been realised through joint commissioning.

·         Lewisham had very limited scope for increasing business rates and also much of the scope for increasing council tax take through housing development was out of the council’s control.

·         Members were invited to attend Public Accounts Select Committee on 16 November.

·         If pupil premium eligibility was automatic rather than on an opt-in basis, there would be a financial benefit to schools. There was support for the council to lobby central government to make this change.

·         SEN and Children’s Social Care overspend areas had improved performance and found cost effective ways of improving the service, however these took time and investment to implement – and increasing demands arising from the consequences of austerity meant that there was no quick route to turning around the overspends.

It was RESOVLED that the report be noted.

The Chair amended the order of the meeting to take Item 7 ahead of Item 5.

The Director for Children’s Social Care updated the Committee on Q11 savings proposal regarding the Meliot Road contact centre.

It was noted that:

·         A £323,000 shortfall was expected this year due to the delay in the centre going ‘live’.

·         Higher savings were anticipated next year, the first full year of the centre being open.

RESOLVED that the report’s contents be noted.

The Committee discussed the work programme and it was noted that:

·         The final report of the in-depth review into the recruitment and retention of school staff would be considered on 11 December.

·         The SACRE proposals for the RE syllabus that had been scheduled for consideration in January would no longer come to committee as it would not be available in time.

·         Provisional GCSE results had been added to work programme for 11 December.

·         The subject for the session with the Mayor should be “What do you see as the major challenges facing children and young people for the new Mayor during his or her term of office?”

·         Members asked for a similar session with the new Mayor to be scheduled in for the summer.

·         Children’s Social Care Road Map – although some of the issues regarding the budget had been considered at PAC, Members still wanted to hear this item in January and for it to cover service planning and the future shape of the service.

It was RESOLVED:

·         That the revisions to the work programme be noted

·         That the Mayor be invited to attend on 11 December to respond to the following question:
What do you see as the major challenges facing children and young people for the new Mayor during his or her term of office?

No referrals were made.