Agenda item

The report outlined the work already in progress and future developments planned for the service. The Ofsted inspection had placed a significant focus on the matter, with SBC and SCST now resolved to undertaking a collaborative approach. As part of this, corporate parenting arrangements had been reviewed.

The Corporate Parenting Panel had been supported throughout 2016, with the new Pledge having been constructed as part of this. The Pledge had been endorsed by Council on 19^th April 2016, and had included significant discussion with the Slough Children In Care Council to place the concerns of local children at the centre of its formulation. The draft Corporate Parenting Strategy had also been revised, with the Corporate Parenting Panel due to receive in June 2016. As well as the Strategy, the Panel would receive a scorecard used to measure progress (which includes both quantitative and qualitative elements), revised terms of reference and a forward plan for its work (based around themed meetings).

The Virtual School had also received significant attention. A permanent Head had been appointed and was having an immediate impact. This was also helping to raise aspirations for looked after children (LACs).

SBC had supported SCST in these endeavours, especially through the Corporate Parenting Panel. Engagement was being increased through measures such as activity days, whilst the workforce was still adapting to its new priorities under SCST. However, the issue of the number of permanent staff remained.

The Panel raised the following issues in discussion:

·  Predicted grades for LACs taking GCSEs in 2016 were better than those achieved in 2015. It was anticipated that 10 LACs would achieve 5 grade A* - C results, whilst pupil premium funding was now being spent more effectively. In previous years it had been underspent, but now almost all the £270,000 had been allocated (much on extra tuition to improve attainment), and child-specific plans had been central to this allocation process.

·  The virtual head was now far more involved in monitoring the progress of LACs who had been placed outside the Borough. Schools within SBC’s area had met with the new Head of Virtual School and had signalled their satisfaction with progress and the allocation of pupil premium funding.

·  Whilst the Ofsted report of February 2016 had noted that the Virtual School held very little data for tracking educational performance, work was under way here. Welfare Call had been recruited to make services more robust, although SCST and SBC still needed to work on data sharing protocols to maximise the impact of their work. The Partnership Board was resolving this matter; however, SBC and SCST still needed to undertake some significant work on this.

·  There was a national issue with the outcomes for LAC (e.g. proportion of LACs who became prisoners, poor mental health), and an emphasis was being placed on retaining them in education. However, there had been problems in Slough with schools being unaware of which students were LACs, or not being informed of their departure from school before it happened. A lack of continuity also needed to be addressed, both in education and across the experiences of LACs.

·  Personal Education Plan (PEPs) providers were working with SCST to improve accessibility and procedures. Designated teachers had received some basic training to allow them to use the relevant systems; quality would be the focus of the next phase of efforts. Young people in the Reach Out Group have also used the system as part of a presentation they received.

·  The Virtual Head had been shared with another institution; however, from June 2016 they would be a full time employee. At present, the Virtual Head was meeting all members of staff involved in the virtual school’s work.

·  Members of the Panel would be able to receive examples of PEPs and case studies of pupil premium funding allocation. This would assist them in gaining an understanding of these operations.

·  The Youth Offending Team had been effective, despite the 31 LACs who had been cautioned or convicted of offences. There was no specific Youth Offending Panel, although other such groups (e.g. Placements Panel, Care Leavers Panel, Sexual Exploitation and Missing Risk Assessment Conference Panel) hade been established. A multi-agency Youth Offending Board was in place.

·  Significant improvements were being made to children’s services (e.g. ‘front door’ services). However, more work would be required before children were no longer placing themselves in vulnerable situations.

·  Key performance indicators had been compiled by SCST, and had been presented to SBC. It was intended that these would be completed by May 2016.

·  The Corporate Parenting Panel Chair would discuss LAC performance with the Chair of the Education and Children’s Services Scrutiny Panel in autumn 2016. This would cover data on tracking the education and performance of LACs, the Pledge and the LAC Strategy.

Resolved:

1.  That the minutes of the last and next Partnership Board meetings be circulated to members of the Panel.

2.  That the possibility of training for members on LACs be investigated.