Agenda item

The contract was in its second year and was coming to an end on 30^th September 2016. Cambridge Education, SCST and SBC were in discussions on arrangements to replace the current agreement; these were complex, and also subject to direction from the Secretary of State.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  Members were concerned that the overlap between stated successes and areas requiring improvement left them unclear on the exact position of the service. This was due to the position which was the case at the start of the service; for example, Children’s Centres had been inadequate, and had now been rated as ‘requires improvement’. However, further work was need to move to good or outstanding.

·  Whilst Ofsted school inspections had seen some institutions move from the lower two categories to good or outstanding, greater levels of achievement were desirable.

·  The relevant groupings of potentially vulnerable children were being identified in education (e.g. those in receipt of free school meals) and relevant strategies were being devised to support them. Children’s Centres were increasing engagement with vulnerable children, including those not in formal education.

·  Attendance at Children’s Centres was managed by Cambridge Education and had been made robust. Ofsted inspectors had signed off the service at the end of the first day of their visit (indicating their satisfaction with safeguarding) but Cambridge Education remained vigilant. Action was taken in cases where children were on school rolls but not attending (e.g. joint work / information sharing with SCST), whilst those outside of formal education were pursued and placed in relevant settings.

·  Casework has been recorded and reviewed leading to the reduction in cases held. This had been the result of significant multi-agency efforts as well as internal improvements.

·  Previously, case files had not provided a clear and comprehensive account of the case involved. New procedures had ensured that all contact was now recorded, and this had reduced the number of case files categorised as ‘difficult’ (from around 600 to approximately 400). The Advisory Board had also looked at revised governance arrangements to provide a clear system of challenge and accountability and also help identify any gaps in provision.

·  Preliminary targeting of services and the use of specialist teachers had helped with the early identification of children with needs. A data set was also being compiled to assist. A variety of inputs was also being used (e.g. psychologists) to compile the most comprehensive picture. However, whilst hospitals did refer cases based on health issues, Cambridge Education did not speculate on any potential hereditary aspects relating to care needs.

·  It was also hoped that the improved services provided by the process outlined in the point above would make Slough an attractive place to come for several professions. Cambridge Education was also using its networks to disseminate that message across professions.

·  The KPIs relating to children who progressed two levels between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 for writing and mathematics had declined between 2014 and 2015. However, overall they had risen in the period 2010 to 2015. In addition, the matter concerned 8 schools in particular rather than the entire cohort; as a result, the focus was being placed here. In addition, the alterations in Key Stage 2 mathematics testing raised issues of comparability.

Resolved:

1.  That the Panel’s desire for value for money to be reflected in contract negotiations for the successor to Cambridge Education.

2.  That the Panel would write a submission to Fiona Mactaggart MP for presentation to the Minister of State on teacher recruitment.