Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

1.1.       The Chair noted that a budget savings item had been scheduled for the Committee’s November meeting but removed by the Committee in September as savings proposals were not anticipated. However, in December, a set of savings proposals were published. The Chair had asked for relevant proposals to be brought to this meeting but had been informed that was not procedurally possible.

1.2.       In lieu of formal scrutiny, the Chair and Vice-Chair met with the Cabinet Member and Executive Director for Children and Young People on 5 January to discuss those savings proposals.

1.3.       The Chair had submitted a report based on the aforementioned meeting to the 23 January meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which was to review the Council’s budget savings proposals.

1.4.       The Scrutiny Manager was to circulate the Chair’s report to the Committee.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

That the following declaration be noted:

·       Re item 4, Cllr Paschoud declared that she was a Trust Governor of Watergate School.

RESOLVED

That the following declaration be noted:

·       Re item 4, Cllr Paschoud declared that she was a Trust Governor of Watergate School.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

Cllr Chris Barnham, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Angela Scattergood, Director of Education Services
Anthony Doudle, Head of Lewisham Learning
Ruth Griffiths, Head of Access, Inclusion and Participation

Key points from discussion

The witnesses introduced the report. Key points included:

3.1.     Tackling Race Inequality in Lewisham Schools was a three-year programme launched in 2021, during the height of covid recovery. It existed within a broader focus on ethnicity and the development of anti-racist practice in other council services.

3.2.     All Lewisham schools had signed the pledge to tackle race inequality and racism.

3.3.     There were some “green shoots” of progress re outcomes, but the impact of the programme’s four strands was not yet proved.

3.4.     Issues needed to be considered in the national context – particularly the challenges faced by the Black Caribbean community – and lack of obvious national focus on improvement.

3.5.     The level of intent regarding tackling race inequality varied across London, but inter-borough collaboration was being undertaken.

3.6.     The 35 schools whose governing bodies had not participated in Governors Toolkit training had variable outcomes for Black Caribbean pupils; the Head of Lewisham Learning was to encourage them to complete the training.

3.7.     The impact of the Governors Toolkit and how it was being used needed to be reviewed.

3.8.     While the diversity of governing bodies had increased, more needed to be done.

3.9.     Curricula were strong, as reflected in 94 per cent of schools being rated Good or Outstanding by Ofsted, whose current framework intensively scrutinised the quality of education, including the diversity of persons pupils were exposed to through the curriculum. However, there had not yet been time for this to have been the case for the significant proportions of older pupils’ educations and improve their outcomes.  

3.10.Schools’ efforts to tackle race inequality had been made an explicit area of focus for Lewisham Learning’s improvement work. School leaders were now describing their efforts in their Autumn improvement reports, which were to be followed up on in the Spring and Summer terms.

3.11.Case studies on the impact of the community conversations delivered in 17 schools needed to be produced. Two participating schools had improved outcomes for Black Caribbean pupils. The purpose of community conversations and how communities could be supported to increase attendance at school needed to be explored.  

3.12.Significant work had been undertaken re suspensions and exclusions. Work regarding behaviour policies continued.

The Committee and its guests put questions to the witnesses. Key points included:

3.13.To increase attendance, in addition to community conversations, schools were supported to implement new Department for Education guidance re attendance; and Improvement Advisors were to use data to focus conversations with schools on the groups requiring the most attention and to identify patterns relating to individuals, e.g. often absent on a specific day. 

3.14.The 87 per cent of Lewisham Schools who subscribed to the Council’s Attendance Service received support re absence, particularly persistent and severe absence. Increased multi-agency support for the families  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Witnesses

Cllr Chris Barnham, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Angela Scattergood, Director of Education Services
Ruth Griffiths, Head of Access, Inclusion and Participation

Key points from discussion

The witnesses introduced the report. Key points included:

4.1.     The preference for Lewisham secondary schools was increasing.

4.2.     In-borough special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) placements were increasing.

4.3.     Falling birth rates, Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic were key factors in the reduced number of families with children in the borough.

4.4.     A wider pupil planning strategy was being developed.

The Committee put questions to the witnesses. Key points raised included:

4.5.     In response to falling primary school rolls, the Council had been working with schools to reduce their admissions numbers through determined arrangements.

4.6.     Temporarily capping pupil numbers, rather than changing published admission numbers (PANs), was the most common approach to varying school capacity. Capping allowed schools to respond to demand, including from in-year applications, without the involved process of varying a PAN.

4.7.     The Council’s school finance team worked with schools which were likely to be challenged by the lower funding attracted by lower pupil numbers. A comprehensive support package was available through de-delegated funding. School deficits remained within the Dedicated Schools Grant and could not be charged to the general fund.

4.8.     It was suggested that, if smaller schools were to be sustained, it could be necessary in the future for larger schools to admit fewer pupils. However, the Department for Education did not support reducing the size of popular/over-subscribed schools.

4.9.     The London-wide admissions forum discussed the implications of falling pupil numbers. London Councils had lobbied the Department for Education regarding the associated issues.

4.10.Recent events had been held to promote Lewisham secondary schools. More promotion should be undertaken.

4.11.Where school buildings had surplus capacity, it was being used to introduce resource bases and alternative provision for local children.

4.12.In response to the oversubscription of secondary schools, caps had been raised in the past two years, as this was more financially effective than adjusting PANs.

4.13.In cases of oversubscription, families were accepting places at ‘less-popular’ secondary schools and keeping their children enrolled in them.

4.14.No school closures were currently planned.

4.15.Some schools had had to review staffing structures due to reduced pupil numbers, which had resulted in redundancies.

ACTION

1.     Director of Education Services to share the guiding principles for the pupil place planning strategy with the Committee once appropriate.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

For information only.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

For information only.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.