Agenda item

The Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and University introduced the report which informed the Committee of the progress made on his portfolio since he last reported to the Committee on 12 September 2011.  The report covered the following areas:

·         Ofsted review of Children Educated other than at School

·         School Place Planning and Early Years Provision

·         English as an Additional Language within Peterborough

·         Review of special education needs provision within the city

·         Schools Funding Reform

·         Skills Service

·         City College

·         Young People Not in Employment, Education or Training

·         Recruitment and retention of teachers within schools

·         Update on Pupil Referral Service

·         A strategy on recruitment and selection of school governors as part of the improving attainment

The Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and University informed Members that the number of Young People Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET’s) in the city was down to 7.9% which had been the lowest number recorded for the city.  Members were also informed that two new European states were due to have immigration restrictions lifted next April and this may have an impact on the city.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         What was the actual number of NEET’s in relation to the 7.9% figure?  Members were advised that it equated to just under 400 young people.

·         Did all schools in the city play their part at reintegrating children that had been excluded?  Members were informed that there was a document in place called the ‘Fair Access Protocol’ where by all schools took a turn to take difficult to place children including those who have been excluded.  All schools were obliged to take excluded pupils including Academies.

·         What support were schools being given to ensure those children who may be challenging were given a curriculum appropriate to their needs?  Members were informed that some support was provided to schools in particular regarding NEET’s.  Further support was being developed around the multi-agency support groups to make sure that where support was needed to keep children in school it was available.  Exclusion numbers had reduced in the city due to the increased support.

·         The report mentioned that creative solutions were being looked at to find suitable accommodation to create school places, what did this mean.  Members were informed that various options were being looked at including the old hospital site and possibly the use of office blocks.  When considering creative options consideration would also need to be given to the impact of an area being considered e.g. road infrastructure, increase in traffic, access etc.

·         The report stated that £2.6m had been received in 2012-13 to support basic needs around pupil numbers from the Department for Education.  How did this compare to last year.  Members were advised that the amount received was double the amount received in previous years but it was still too low as more money was needed to spend in the PE1 area and the Hamptons.

·         Considering the population growth of Peterborough do you consider that the decision to close schools in 2002 was short sighted?  Members were advised that in 2002 when the decision was made the population forecast was not expected to be as high as it had been and the inward migration had not been expected.

·         Had there been much feedback from schools on the Schools Funding Reform.   Members were advised that all schools had been invited to comment and 70% had responded. The response was fed back to the Department for Education. There would be an impact and some schools would win and some schools would loose.  The losers would be protected by capping the winners.

·         Members requested an update on the University Centre Peterborough (UCP).  Members were informed that 207 places had been taken up at UCP last year and Cranfield had offered 30 places this year.  43 courses were run through Middlesex last year.  There had been a considerable increase in Health courses being run at Guild House.  Work was being undertaken with Anglia Ruskin to change the name University Centre Peterborough to University of Peterborough but this would take approximately two years.

·         Members commented that having a University in Peterborough would attract better quality teachers.

·         Were all Primary schools obliged to offer SEN places to pupils?  Members were informed that all schools had to provide SEN support if required.  A child would be assessed against a criteria to determine if SEN support was required and if the child was statemented then support would be put in place.

·         The report stated that there was a need for around “£117m in the next 9 years to keep pace with demand creating in excess of 6,000 places”.  Where would the additional funding come from.  Members were advised that a significant portion would need to come from the council and it would also come from section 106 monies from new developments in Peterborough.  35% of the Community Infrastructure Levy monies would go into education.

·         The report stated that in 2014 the government is proposing to extend free entitlement (15 hours) to 2 year olds.  How does the council propose to deal with the shortfall in funding to accommodate this?  Members were informed that the Local Authority was not a statutory provider of Early Years provision.  It was down to the private sector to support the needs of the Early Years cohort.  It was anticipated that 50% of children would access this provision.  The role of the LA was to identify where the gap in the market was across the city and identify the needs and encourage the private sector to fill that gap.

·         The report stated that the new funding formula would lead to significant turbulence across individual schools in 2013/14 when introduced.  How many schools would lose some of their budget and how long would protection be in place for those schools. Members were advised that all figures for the next financial year had been based on the October pupil count which had just happened and therefore data was not yet available to accurately say what would happen.  Modelling had however been done on the 2011/ 2012 data based on the new funding formula and on that basis there would be significant turbulence.  It would amount to a 5% difference in a schools budget either way.  There would be two years minimum funding protection in place for schools that would loose.  The schools forum would be monitoring the situation going forward.

·         Peterborough had been identified as a cold spot for the recruitment of teachers.  Can you use the lessons learnt from the recent successful recruitment campaign for social workers to improve recruitment of teachers.  The Assistant Director for Education and Resources advised that this would be done.  Lessons could be learnt and marketing could be improved.  There was a need to stress the benefits that Peterborough offered. The key selling point for Peterborough was that it had every type of school and demography.  The Local Authority had also considered setting up a SCITT (School Centred Initial Teacher Training) Centre.  This would offer teacher training run by schools within Peterborough and would produce “home grown” Peterborough based ‘outstanding’ teachers.

ACTIONS AGREED

The Committee noted the progress made on the portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and University.