Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received form Ms Carolyn Lewis – Church of England Representative and Ms Jenny Day – Teaching Unions Representative.

Trade Union Officer Janet McKenna joined the meeting remotely.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Members were asked to declare any interests they may have had in the

business to be discussed.

Councillor Haq declared that his daughter had previously used the home-to school transport service.

During the item on the Fostering Service Annual Report, Councillor Pickering declared that she had a Special Guardianship Order (SGO).

The minutes of the meeting of the Children, Young People, and Education Scrutiny Commission held on 16^th January 2024 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

 AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Children, Young People and Education Scrutiny Commission held on 16 January 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Chair announced that there would be a short break in proceedings for those observing Ramadan to break their fast.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any petitions received in accordance with Council procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that none had been received.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any questions, representations, or statements of case received.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations or statements of case received in accordance with Council procedures.

Simon Thorpe to ask:

“How have 'exceptional circumstances' been decided, with regards to whether a 16+ young person with SEND is entitled to their EHCP specified transport, where is the visibility of this policy and the criteria that are 'exceptional circumstances'?

How have those young peoples' EHCPs where transport was or is now subsequently recorded as an 'exceptional circumstance' become as such? How is their 'exceptional circumstance' evidenced within the EHCP, under what section and via what instructions and by whom?

What is required in a young person's EHCP to evidence their transport need as an 'exceptional circumstance' and how is this need evidenced within the EHCP plan?

Under what criteria have some young people with physical, mental or social health need been offered either transport with a taxi or a personal transport budget, as opposed to others with similar or different physical, mental or social health need who have been refused transport with a taxi or a personal transport budget?

What are the criteria that some of the 'very few exceptional circumstances' will be offered either transport with a taxi or a personal transport budget, whereas some will be refused?

Finally, how is the 'capacity' of the young person to make an independent bus journey taken into account?”

Ruth Northey to ask:

Appeals against post-16 SEND transport decisions for the academic year 2024/5 are currently being decided upon prior to the publication of the new policy and appeals process. How can you guarantee a transparent and fair appeals process, especially given that I and other parents have been denied a second stage appeal with an independent panel which is recommended in statutory guidance?

Local authorities have to adhere to Post-16 transport and travel support guidance. This guidance states that they are should support the commissioning arrangements to make sure they maintain the requirements outlined in an EHCP. Distance to school must be considered. The council’s website currently states that a school being “out of area” is not considered an exceptional circumstance. In light of this, what arrangements are being made to follow statutory guidance and facilitate a child’s placement when this is some distance from the local area?

Esther Cameron to ask:

We as a group we also represent parents whose young people use the council provided yellow buses which are available to all age groups. We understand that the cuts are a cost-saving exercise, but those buses will still be running now without our children on board. By changing the policy on SEND Post-16 travel to school or college, please can you clarify how the savings are calculated?

When setting out your Post-16 transport policy, you are supposed to take into account the local transport infrastructure. In the case of my son, the destination

for his Post-16 course is an alternative education  ...  view the full agenda text for item 64.

The Monitoring Officer reported that none had been received.

Simon Thorpe asked:

“How have 'exceptional circumstances' been decided, with regards to whether a 16+ young person with SEND is entitled to their EHCP specified transport, where is the visibility of this policy and the criteria that are 'exceptional circumstances'?

How have those young peoples' EHCPs where transport was or is now subsequently recorded as an 'exceptional circumstance' become as such? How is their 'exceptional circumstance' evidenced within the EHCP, under what section and via what instructions and by whom?

What is required in a young person's EHCP to evidence their transport need as an 'exceptional circumstance' and how is this need evidenced within the EHCP plan?

Under what criteria have some young people with physical, mental or social health need been offered either transport with a taxi or a personal transport budget, as opposed to others with similar or different physical, mental or social health need who have been refused transport with a taxi or a personal transport budget?

What are the criteria that some of the 'very few exceptional circumstances' will be offered either transport with a taxi or a personal transport budget, whereas some will be refused?

Finally, how is the 'capacity' of the young person to make an independent bus journey taken into account?”

Ruth Northey asked:

Appeals against post-16 SEND transport decisions for the academic year 2024/5 are currently being decided upon prior to the publication of the new policy and appeals process. How can you guarantee a transparent and fair appeals process, especially given that I and other parents have been denied a second stage appeal with an independent panel which is recommended in statutory guidance?

Local authorities have to adhere to Post-16 transport and travel support guidance. This guidance states that they are should support the commissioning arrangements to make sure they maintain the requirements outlined in an EHCP. Distance to school must be considered. The council’s website currently states that a school being “out of area” is not considered an exceptional circumstance. In light of this, what arrangements are being made to follow statutory guidance and facilitate a child’s placement when this is some distance from the local area?

Esther Cameron asked:

We as a group we also represent parents whose young people use the council provided yellow buses which are available to all age groups. We understand that the cuts are a cost-saving exercise, but those buses will still be running now without our children on board. By changing the policy on SEND Post-16 travel to school or college, please can you clarify how the savings are calculated?

When setting out your Post-16 transport policy, you are supposed to take into account the local transport infrastructure. In cases in which the Post-16 course is an alternative education provider named by the EHCP and approved by Leicester City Council, but which is not served at all by public transport, can you give details of your transport arrangement for children where their school is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The Director of Education, SEND and Early Help submits the Education Performance Report for 2023 for the Commission to consider areas of strength and concern.

The Director of Education, SEND and Early Help submitted the Education Performance Report for 2023 for the Commission to consider areas of strength and concern.

The Assistant City Mayor for Education, Libraries and Community Centres introduced the report. 

Key points included:

• Previously, the local authority had played a key role in school improvement, however, with the introduction of academies, there was not as much significance for the local authority in terms of school improvement.
• The role of the local authority was now more about partnering and engaging with people in terms of practice and brokering relationships.
• The effects of poverty on children’s learning were known.  It was also acknowledged that issues surrounding housing impacted children.
• During the Covid-19 pandemic, Leicester was in lockdown for longer than any other part of the country and it was acknowledged that this would affect pupil performance in the coming years.  Given the barriers such as this that Leicester schools had faced, the schools were doing well, but there was still progress to be made.  However, the partnership was strong.

The Programme Manager (Business Change) for SEND Early Help and Education then presented the report.

Key points included:

• The education landscape had changed a lot with reduced local authority ownership.
• A national reporting style had been followed identifying different groups and compared them against national trends and other local authorities.
• The report started with Early Years which had shown a good level of development particularly regarding children’s readiness for school.
• Phonics in Year 1 were looked at to assess if a child was on track to become a fluent reader.
• Key Stages 1 and 2 were looked at in terms of attainment and progress.  The report also looked at Key Stage 4 and secondary education.
• There had been fluctuation in assessment during the Covid-19 pandemic, and it had been noted that Leicester outcomes had not recovered as quickly as they had nationally, however, the extended lockdown in Leicester was thought to account for this.
• There was a similar picture to 2021/22 in terms of children in Leicester City Primary and Secondary generally making better progress than the national average, however, the starting point on entering school was lower than nationally and in comparison to other local authorities.
• Children eligible for free school meals performed better than their peers at all key stages.
• Children of Asian heritage and those with English as an additional language often had better outcomes and made better progress than their peers, particularly by the end of Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4.
• Only two thirds of Leicester children were ready for school.  Teachers had looked at reasons behind this in a national survey and part of the reason, among other things, was attributed to less time at nursery due to the lockdown, parents not reading to children and more time at home with less access to interaction with other children, a lack of targeted state support for children, a lack of peer and community support for parents and the rising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submits a report to provide an overview of the activity and performance of the Fostering Service during 2022/23.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submitted a report to provide an overview of the activity and performance of the Fostering Service during 2022 - 2023.

Key points included:

• Foster carers were a critical resource.  Without them the Council would struggle to get good quality placements for Children Looked After (CLA).
• The Majority of CLA lived in family households with Leicester City foster carers looking after 65% of those in foster care.
• The majority of fostered children were placed locally, in Leicester, Leicestershire or Rutland.
• Over 130 families were supported in mainstream fostering and over 60 families were supported in kinship fostering.
• There was an experienced cohort of foster carers, with 63% of foster carers having more than five years’ experience.
• 16 new mainstream fostering households had been recruited in 2022-23.
• 44% of foster carers approved this year were approved to care for sibling groups.
• Foster carers reflected the diverse community in Leicester.
• 20 Kinship Care Families had been approved, which were households who were closely related with the CLA.
• An enhanced foster care programme had been established for children with complex needs who received additional support.
• The private sector market had become very challenging.
• There was a Child Family Support Team (CFST) who worked with children who had experienced trauma.  They had worked with 42 children during 2022/23 and their foster carers in managing behaviour and maintain relationships.
• The Marketing Strategy was being refreshed, a new officer had been recruited who had presented a draft strategy that would come to the Commission once complete.
• The CFST was being looked at in terms of how to enhance it to support a wider range of additional needs.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• The CFS team had post-adoption support staff who could offer support to carers looking after children who had experienced trauma.  Carers who believed that there were additional support needs could apply to the additional support fund.  The Director of Childrens Social Care & Community Safety would reach out to SGO carers via the newsletter to help them become aware of the help on offer.
• Even when external markets were approached, it was not always possible to find the best match for the CLA.  Additionally, costs were higher in the private sector.
• Challenges included:
  • Historically, the foster carer cohort was an aging population.  Within the Fostering UK charity, 40% were over 60 and would eventually get to an age where they could no longer foster. 
  • Housing situations may mean that people are unable to foster.
  • There were system challenges around the competition between the private sector and the local authority.  Increasingly, local authorities were seeing the return of CLA who had left private systems due to changes in organisations and the ethos of organisations changing their value base.
• The aim was to place every CLA in Leicester where safe to do so.
• Whilst the demographics of foster carers did not completely match the demographics of Leicester, they largely reflected of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submits a report providing an overview of the activity and performance of the Family Adoption Links Regional Adoption Agency incorporating Leicester City Adoption Service from 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023.

The Strategic Director of Social Care and Education submitted a report providing an overview of the activity and performance of the Family Adoption Links Regional Adoption Agency incorporating Leicester City Adoption Service from 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023.

Key points included:

• Local Authorities had a duty to become part of a regional adoption agency.  Leicester City Council was in the Eastern part of the East Midlands, hosted by Lincolnshire County Council.
• In 2022/23 the number of adopters approved had increased.
• 25 children in Leicester were made subject of adoption orders. Placement orders matched CLA with adopters.
• Adopters could not apply for the adoption order until the child had been with them for 12 months.
• In 2022/23, 25 adoption orders were made, which was a reduction on previous years.
• Many cases had become stuck in the system, and many had come at once.
• 2021/22 was a year with an unusually high number of adoption orders.
• It was a goal of the Regional Adoption Agency to look to find a good match for a child’s needs within the local region rather than further afield.
• Increasingly adoption arrangements have some kind of direct or indirect contact with the birth family, this was another reason why finding local matches was important.
• A higher number of children form Leicester were placed in the Regional Adoption Agency area and fewer were placed in voluntary adoption agencies further afield. 
• The Regional Adoption Agencies had only been in place for three years.  Ofsted had done a thematic inspection and a report had been published which could be brought to the Commission.  The report had looked at themes across six agencies.  The feedback did not identify the agencies but looked at which models were most common, and the difference made and what could be done to improve locally.
• In local authority areas, often children were not placed in their home city due to safety concerns.  In the majority of these cases it was due to concerns regarding birth parents unhappy with the outcome.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• A reason that the fostering service was not regional in the same way was due to birth parents having a right to see fostered children.
• It was good to see regions working together and children being well-placed.
• It was thought that the Ofsted report was positive as it looked at six thematic areas and in four of them, they identified no areas of ­­­­­areas for development, only strengths, so this was seen as very strong.
• It was always possible to learn from other agencies.  Practice was led by outstanding local authority practitioners.  This agency had a slightly different model to others where it played more of a coordination role, with overarching coordination and support, online advertising and coproduction of data.  Local control over recruitment was maintained, so having local input and control gave the Council flexibility to meet its needs.  There were also leaders on national panels who could share good  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

The Commission’s Work Programme is attached for information and comment.

It was noted that the Education Performance Report needed to come back to the Commission.

The Chair thanked members and officers for their work throughout the municipal year.

The work programme was noted. 

Members of the Commission were invited to consider content of the work programme and were invited to make suggestions for additions as appropriate to be brought to future meetings.

There being no further items of urgent business, the meeting finished at 19:40.