Agenda item

The decision to return schools to SBC rather than Cambridge Education had been made in August 2016. This timeframe necessitated rapid action from SBC and co-ordination of activity to ensure that the 1^st December 2016 date for the new arrangements could be met. In essence, this was achieved by dividing the areas of responsibility into 3 lots:

The first, education access and inclusion, had proved the least complex. Staff were transferred back into SBC employment on 1^st September 2016. The second (early years, children’s centres and education business support) was achieved by 1^st November 2016, with preparation for an imminent inspection of children’s centres also taking place. The final lot (school improvement and inclusive learning services) was the most complex, being completed on 1^st December 2016. The period September to November 2016 had also seen SBC manage the exit of Cambridge Education.

The new arrangements had helped clarify SBC’s role. In particular, SBC was now responsible for safeguarding, championing educational excellence and challenging any issues within provision of education. Meanwhile, responsibility for advocacy regarding vulnerable children had remained with SBC throughout the period where Cambridge Education had been operating. However, whilst this provided a clear set of priorities, it also offered a challenge in terms of undertaking these responsibilities whilst operating within the existing limited budget. As a result, SBC was keen to encourage Councillors to assist in this work, as their position was now more important than ever in terms of supporting SBC’s ambitions. In addition, partners could also fulfil a vital role in augmenting SBC’s efforts.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  SBC currently had a recruitment freeze; however, permission could be sought in exceptional circumstances. Given the loss of some key staff from Cambridge Education, there were key roles which required post holders. The Education Department would not be able to make appointments which could not be justified.

·  Provision for children with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) could be complex given the fractured landscape within the area (e.g. children with temporary special educational needs). Table top monitoring was tracking cases, as was the process of compiling the annual results for SEND children. Close partnership work with SCST and the monitoring and reviewing of the effectiveness of plans was also part of this process. SCST provided specialist support on the matter, whilst clear communications with parents were identified as a key area.

·  The Safeguarding Board could challenge any service provider. As part of this, information could be requested and systematically analysed, with follow up visits to pursue any lines suggested by research. Headteachers and other practitioners would be involved as appropriate. Compliance with safeguarding was monitored.

·  2 Welfare Education Officers were working on reporting their findings; one sat in the MASH, the other working with the Head of School Services.

·  Relationships with academies were complicated by the local situation; only one multi-academy trust was in operation, with most academies in Slough being part of smaller organisations. As a result, these may not have Executive Heads and require more complex partnership arrangements. 12 consultants were currently gaining intelligence on the local picture, with dialogue to be held subsequently once the assessment had been completed. Should it be required, a conversation with the Regional Schools Commissioner would be arranged.

·  A business case was presently being compiled for the acquisition of a cloud-based schools data system (e.g. Pendulum). Schools had also signalled their initial support for such a move.

Resolved: that the report be noted.