Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved:

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2014 were approved.

Resolved:

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2014 were approved.

Councillor Alan Till declared a personal interest as Vice-Chair of Rockbourne Youth Centre’s Supporter Group

Resolved:

The Committee congratulated all primary schools in Lewisham on their excellent results.

The Committee will consider secondary school results in more details as part of the scheduled item in February.

Sue Tipler (Head of Standards and Achievement) introduced the report, highlighting the following information:

·         Lewisham is near the top of the country in terms of primary school results.

·         Phonics results are being looked at closely to see whether Pupil Premium children are closing the gaps in achievement with non-Pupil Premium children.

·         At KS1 Lewisham is above the national average in every measure.

·         At KS2 the step change in achievement made in 2012 has been sustained, with more schools moving up, although gaps in achievement remain at the higher level.

·         At KS4 results dropped for the first time in a long time. The national figures are not out yet but the early indication is that London-wide results have dropped. Ofsted have indicated it will be difficult to directly compare the previous year’s results with this year’s.

·         Investigative work has been carried with schools around GCSE achievement, with indications that there are different results at different schools with little pattern. Some have achieved better in English, where the national trend is worsening or achieved worse in maths where the national trend is improving.

In response to questions from the Committee, Councillor Paul Maslin (Cabinet Member for Children & Young People), Frankie Sulke (Executive Director for Children & Young People) and Sue Tipler provided the following information:

·         Officers are working with Sutton Trust, who have produced a toolkit to help schools improve the gaps in achievement between those on the Pupil Premium and those not. Headteachers are being pointed towards it.

·         There is a focus on the quality of teaching and learning as well as awareness raising so teachers know who is Pupil Premium in the classroom.

·         Pupil Premium children in Lewisham do better than the national average and above the London average for Pupil Premium. At Level 4 the gap is closed and at Level 5 the gap is closing.

·         Ofsted have indicated that they won’t give an Outstanding grade to schools with big gaps in achievement between those on Pupil Premium and those not.

·         The achievement at Early Years level and in primary schools has been excellent, especially given the levels of deprivation that are present in the borough and Lewisham has some of the best primary schools in the country.

·         There have been concerns over the performance of some schools at GCSE level. A key indicator is whether schools have matched their GCSE performance with the performance of their cohort in the primary tests when they were 11. 

·         Officers have taken teams into two schools and looked carefully at predictions for next year, assessing how robust they are.

·         One concern has been the number of pupils at levels 4 c, b and a not converting to higher grades, especially those at Level 4c.  Officers are saying to primary schools that sending pupils at Level 5 will result in a conversion to higher GCSE grades.

·         Pupil Premium children in London have a better chance of going to university than some non-Pupil Premium children in other areas of the country.

·         Lewisham’s ranking comparison with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Resolved:

The Committee resolved to advise the Public Accounts Select Committee of the following:

A6 and A8: Public Health programme review

The Committee raised concerns about the impacts of reductions in funding for Sexual Health and Maternal & Child Health (particularly vitamin D supplements and child death bereavement) and recommended that the Healthier Communities Select Committee should take particular consideration of these as part of its scrutiny of the A6 and A8 savings proposals.

K2: YOS reorganisation, changes in interventions & reduction in contracts

The Committee highlighted that reductions in spending from Lewisham, as well as potential reductions from other local authorities and purchasers of youth offending related services, could have a cumulative negative impact on service providers, meaning that services may no longer be viable in the future.

The Committee also recommended that the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee should have the opportunity to scrutinise the K2 saving proposals

Q2: Reduction in Youth Service provision

The Committee supported Option 1 presented in the savings proposal and agreed that officers should pursue an employee-led mutual to deliver youth services from April 2016.

In addition, the Committee recommended that there is voluntary and community sector involvement and strong representation in the governance structures of any new mutual organisation.

The Committee raised concerns about the local impact of the savings proposals related to a reduction to youth worker capacity and removal of Council staff from the Ladywell and Rockbourne sites. The Committee recommended that alternative provision for current users of the service should be identified and made available in the local areas affected by the savings proposal.

The Committee highlighted that reductions in spending by the Council on youth related services across the organisation could have a cumulative negative impact on those providing services, meaning that services may no longer be viable in the future.

The Committee also recommended that the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee should have the opportunity to scrutinise the Q2 saving proposals.

David Austin (Head of Corporate Resources) introduced the report, highlighting that it provides the context for the Lewisham Future Programme. There is a need to save £85m over the next 3 financial years. £40m of savings are presented in this report, with £30m required in 2015/16 and £10m in 2016/17. This will be achieved via the different work strands identified in the report.

Frankie Sulke (Executive Director for Children & Young People) highlighted that it has been difficult for officers to bring forward these proposals as they represent significant savings that cannot be achieved without having a negative impact. Officers have taken directions from Mayoral priorities and the work strands identified in the report to develop proposals. Some proposals will involve slicing budgets while others are more transformational. The Committee accepted that there will be negative consequences as a result of the savings being forced upon local authorities by central government and appreciated the efforts by officers to develop the proposals.

In response to questions from the Committee, Alan Docksey (Head of Resources and Performance) and Frankie Sulke informed the Committee that the budget for the school uniform grant was £40k per year but expenditure hadn’t gone past £20k for the last few years. The grant funding was a leftover from previous times where the local authority provided funding and support for uniforms for children. This is the responsibility of the schools themselves and all schools support pupils and families around issues like uniform and PE kits. The suggestion to remove the grant was raised at the Schools Forum, where schools agreed to its removal.

K2: YOS reorganisation, changes in interventions & reduction in contracts 

Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime & Supporting People) introduced the savings proposal, highlighting the following key points:

·         The Youth Offending Service (YOS) is funded joint by Lewisham and by the Ministry of Justice. The proposal is to reduce £200k of Council funding.

·         There is a statutory obligation to provide YOS and the proposals are based around the minimum standards of provision needed to fulfil our statutory duties.

·         The proposals have 4 areas of savings:

o  Reduction in general overhead costs through moving to a paperless office and streamlining processes

o  Reduction in reparation projects, with officers looking at other options to deliver this either for free or at a reduced cost.

o  Reduction in externally funded programmes and contracts. There will be a renegotiation of the joint contract held with Bromley as well as a reduction in the summer arts programme.

o  Deletion of 1 vacant post within the team, which will result in an increased workload for the remaining team.

In response to questions from the Committee, Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney provided the following information:

·         Officers are looking at expanding the work carried out with organisations that provide services for free, such as Food Banks and the Canal and River Trust. The aim will be to maintain as many options as possible as these programmes help the community and aid rehabilitation. If alternatives cannot be found YOS officers may  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Resolved:

The Committee approved the terms of reference and timetable for the Young People’s Mental Health Review.

The Committee approved the terms of reference and timetable for the Sharing Schools’ Best Practice Review.

The Committee approved the work programme

The Committee discussed the scoping reports and the work programme.

Resolved:

The Committee approved the terms of reference and timetable for the Young People’s Mental Health Review.

The Committee approved the terms of reference and timetable for the Sharing Schools’ Best Practice Review.

The Committee approved the work programme