Minutes for Children & Young People Scrutiny Commission meeting, Oct 12 2009, 7.00PM official page

1.1  Cllr Bell, Cllr Landau, Cllr Khan, Vera Edwards

2.1   There are no urgent items and the order is as laid out.

3.1   Cllr Taylor declared he is a member of the Children’s Trust Board.

4.1   The minutes of the 2^nd September meeting were AGREED as an accurate account according to the following changes:

• Paragraph 4.1, Cllr Taylor’s point should be changed to:

Cllr Taylor commended the DCSfor its work and foresight on the ‘Reclaiming Social Work’ approach but raised concern that measuring the quantity of meetings does not focus on the quality of safeguarding procedures.

• Point 7.4, the 1^st comment:

Lisa Neidich raised the point that she asked about the needs of all independently educated young people, and used the Orthodox Jewish community as an example.

• Point 7.4, the 4^th comment by Cllr Krishna should be changed to:

Cllr Krishnacommented that no one can be sure that Hackney’s children and young people will want to stay in the borough but the quality of education is such that it will encourage them to attend.

• Paragraph 8.9, should be changed to:

Cllr Krishna felt that the first core question was not phrased appropriately as the Council is not solely responsible for creating parenting strategies, it is a shared responsibility amongst all partners in the borough.

• Regarding paragraph 8.3 the Chair noted that the Terms of Reference have been updated to include Cllr Taylor’s suggested sub-question.

• Point 10.3, the 6^th comment by Cllr Krishna should be changed to:

Cllr Krishnaagreed with Cllr Taylorbut stated that it would be challenging to produce a set of standard parenting principles for Hackney.

AGREED

The minutes were agreed subject to amendments suggested above.

4.2   The Chair informed the Commission that the Learning Trust will provide the information requested at the September meeting on parenting programmes for the November meeting.

4.3   The Chair also informed the Commission that the data from the East LondonFoundation Trust had still not been received in the format Commission members requested and stated that the Scrutiny Officer will continue to chase this.

4.4   The Chair explained that as requested at a previous meeting, Item 4b was a list of training available to members about safeguarding children.  The Chair made clear that if any member was interested in the training, they should contact the Scrutiny Officer who would be able to arrange this.

5.1   There were no updates.

Presentation from the government’s Child Poverty Unit about their work.

6.1   The Chair welcomed Sally Knock and Tony Finnegan from the government’s Child Poverty Unit and invited them to introduce their work.

6.2  Ms Knock outlined that the Child Poverty Unit brings together the expertise of officials from the Department of Work and Pensions and the Department for Children, Schools and Families and works closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury and key stakeholders to drive forward the child poverty agenda.

6.3   Ms Knock confirmed there are four main measures of Child Poverty:

·  relative poverty (living in households with less than 60% of median income)

·  material deprivation (combination of material deprivation and low income – less than 70% of median income)

·  persistent poverty (living in relative poverty for three out of four years)

·  absolute poverty (living in families with income below absolute threshold)

6.4   The main indicator used is where children are living in households with less than 60% of median income.  This currently equates to incomes of less than £361 per week before housing costs for a couple family with two children.

6.5   Growing up in poverty has long term effects on children’s life chances and creates a cycle of poverty:

·  Families live in poverty → Children lack opportunities →Children have worse outcomes →Children do not reach their full potential → Families live in poverty...

6.6   Ms Knock emphasised that a wide range of action is required to tackle the causes and consequences of poverty.  This includes action around:

·  education, health, and the family

·  employment and adult skills

·  housing and neighbourhoods

·  and financial support

6.7   Mr Finnegan discussed how the whole community benefits from tackling Child Poverty.  For example, if there is less deprivation within communities, then they feel safer, and if families increase their income then this benefits local businesses.

6.8   It was emphasised that tackling child poverty needs a partnership approach.  Local partners know the area and the community, and all partners need to be aware of the work they need to do to end Child Poverty.

6.9   Accurate information and current evidence for local areas is needed to be able to develop work to tackle Child Poverty.  Local agencies in the borough know the area best and can better develop effective strategies than a central approach that must be adopted by all local authorities around the country.

6.10  The Child Poverty Bill will receive Royal Assent next year.  It will place a duty on local authorities and their partners to co-operate to reduce child poverty in their area.  The Bill will also include a duty on local authorities to carry out a child poverty needs assessment and prepare a local child poverty strategy.

6.11 The Child Poverty Unit will issue guidance about what needs to be in the needs assessment and how to write one.  The guidance will be available on the Child Poverty Unit website later in the year, along with further information about the Bill.

6.12 Mr Finnegan confirmed that the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Presentation from Department for Children, Schools and Families about Extra Mile report and trial outcome.

7.1   The Chair welcomed Marie Costigan and Charlotte Carter-Wall from the Department for Children, Schools and Families and invited them to introduce their work.

7.2   Ms Costigan introduced herself and her colleague, Ms Carter-Wall and explained that she was a civil servant and Ms Carter-Wall was a professional advisor from a teaching background.

7.3   Ms Costigan began by encouraging people to look beneath the figures that show the increase in good (A* - C) GCSE grades to see the huge difference in attainment between pupils that receive free school meals and their peers.

7.4   Nationally there is a 28% gap in Key Stage 4 results between pupils who receive free school meals and their peers.  This is a bigger gap than the gender or BME gaps in attainment.

7.5   In Hackney there is a smaller gap between free school meal pupils and their peers, but exam results in Hackney are lower generally than the rest of the country.

7.6   After prior attainment, poverty is the strongest indicator of a child’s life chances (though there are also large gaps for pupils with SEN and LAC).

·  At 22 months, children from poorer families have a smaller vocabulary and show less development than more advantaged peers.

·  Such children start primary school behind, and struggle to catch up.

·  At each key transition point (11, 16, 19) the chances of a pupil eligible for free school meals achieving age-related expectations are 3 times worse.

·  These gaps are reflected in lower aspirations and lower recognition – e.g. poor pupils are under-represented in G&T registers and over-represented in SEN registers.

·  Hence excessive rates of permanent exclusions and NEET.

7.7   The DCSF has five main strands of work to narrow the gap and the Extra Mile project covers the first four of these:

·  visibility

·  early years, parents

·  targeted teaching support

·  beyond classroom – extended school and other services

·  school and LA accountability

7.8   It is important to remember that the academic ability children present when they start at primary school does not reflect their potential, there are many other factors that contribute to this. 

7.9   Ms Carter-Wall introduced the Extra Mile project.  It aims to raise the aspirations of disadvantaged children and engage them in their education.  The project aims to narrow the gap in educational achievement between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers, and to demonstrate schools in deprived areas can make a difference to children’s achievement and aspiration through targeted activities and support.

7.10 Pupils that receive free school meals might have high aspirations but after a few setbacks they might lower their expectations because they don’t have the encouragement and support to keep going.

7.11 The Extra Mile trial has identified the key activities (extra measures) which have been particularly successful in raising aspirations and attainment in good practice schools and aims to transfer these ideas to the trial schools.

7.12 The project first visited 45 successful primary schools and 50 successful secondary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Presentation from the Cabinet Office on the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions and the Unleashing Aspirations report.

8.1   The Chair introduced Ben Widdicombe from the Cabinet Office and invited him to introduce the work of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions.

8.2   Mr Widdicombe outlined that the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions was set up following the New Opportunities (Social Mobility) White Paper in January 2009.  The Panel was independent of the government and is non party-political.  The Panel consisted of 18 members who represented the major professions.

8.3   The Panel conducted a National Call for Evidence and received 150 responses from the professions.  They also held youth forums, expert evidence sessions, thinktank roundtables and stakeholder sessions to gather evidence.

8.4   The Panel produced an evidence pack in April. The call for evidence and best practice pack was produced in May, and the final report was published in July.

8.5  Findings and Evidence

·  Lack of aspiration. 40% of young people from better off backgrounds aspire to become professionals, vs. 16% from average backgrounds and 13% from poorer backgrounds.

·  Poor careers advice and a lack of soft skills (‘employability’). 7 in 10 young people are unhappy with the careers support they receive.

·  Internships are vital to success. 80% of employers recruit former interns, and over 90% young people say that an internship helped to raise their aspirations and improve their CV. However, it is very difficult for disadvantaged young people to get internships as they lack the social and family connections needed to find one.

·  Recruitment and selection processes need to be fairer. 70% of the top graduate recruiters target only 20 of the 167 UK universities. The professions do not keep data of socioeconomic background (unlike gender/ethnicity), therefore there is no way to monitor progress in increasing access.

·  Better vocational routes are needed. Only 0.2% of apprentices go on to further or higher education.  There has been a ‘graduate-isation’ of the professions and a breaking down of the vocational ‘work up’ approach in many professions.

8.6   Recommendations

•  Aspiration:

–  More professional outreach

–  Reforming the Gifted and Talented scheme (mentoring, work exp., soft skills)

–  Better IT – a ‘Professions.com’ website

•  Schools:

–  Better soft skill development

–  Careers advice funding and delivery devolved to schools

•  Universities:

–  Use of contextual admissions

–  University staff on school boards

–  Better use of Widening Participation budgets for local School/Universities/professional partnerships

•  Internships:

–  Government backed, industry agreed, Code of Best Practice on internships

–  Internship quality Kite Mark

–  Micro-loans and Professional Development loans and bursaries for internships

•  Recruitment and selection:

–  Collecting data on socio-economic background (Senior Civil Service to lead on this, professions to follow)

–  Professions planning for fair access

–  Best practice guide for employers

•  Vocational routes:

–  More paraprofessional and vocational routes into professions

8.7   Mr Widdicombe explained that the Government will respond in early November. The response will set out plans against each accepted recommendations, and will be set in the context of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Presentation from the Family and Parenting Institute about their report looking at the role parents play in young people’s decisions regarding education, training and careers.

9.1   The Chair welcomed Anne Page from the Family and Parenting Institute and asked her to introduce their report on ‘Parental Influence on Young People’.

9.2   Ms Page explained that as well as their policy and research work, the Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) has parenting programmes running in Hackney, for example with homeless parents and others.  The Family and Parenting Institute is also a partner in the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People's Services (C4EO).

9.3   Research for the report was carried out through focus groups with parents and children in 5 different areas, as well as through the YouGov research. 

9.4   The focus group research found out that careers advice and the Connexions service were not meeting expectations.  Many parents and young people felt that planning for the future dropped off the agenda for many people as they were not given the support they needed.

9.5   The focus groups felt that the gap widens between schools, young people and parents as the young person gets older.

9.6   The research found that young people’s aspirations are not linked to their socioeconomic backgrounds, but those from disadvantaged backgrounds do not know how to get the support to meet their aspirations.  Also, the parents often have lower expectations, and the young people can perceive them as trying to put a break on them reaching their aspirations.

9.7   The research found that although parents struggle with offering support and advice to 14-17 year olds, it was at this age that young people said they really wanted parental support.  Once the young person was 16, parents said they found it easier to talk to their children and offer advice, but, by 16, the young people didn’t value this advice as much as they were already finding their own pathway in life.

9.8   It was also found that non-resident parents (usually fathers) have more influence on young people than they believe they do. 

9.9   The research suggested that mothers carry on providing advice and support to their children regardless of the views of the young person.  However, the involvement of fathers in their children’s future choices tended to depend on the young person – if they wanted the father to be involved then the father would be, but if they did not want that support then the fathers tended to back away from getting involved.

9.10 It was made clear in the focus groups and research that parents wanted to be involved in their children’s education and choices from the start of primary schools onwards and at all the important decision points during their education.  Parents want to be used more as a resource by schools, and they want the school to be local community hub.

9.11 Ms Page suggested mobile phones and the internet could be used to keep parents involved in schools and their children’s education. 

9.12 Ms Page also mentioned the importance of mentoring schemes in providing young people and parents with real contact with and experience  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Update from the Learning Trust on the recommendations from the Early Years scrutiny review.

10.1  The Chair welcomed Tricia Okoruwa (Deputy Director - Primary and Early Years), Chris Harrison (Interim Senior Adviser - Early Years), and Donna Thomas (Strategic Lead for Children's Centres) from the Learning Trust and invited them to provide an update on progress against the recommendations included in the Early Years scrutiny review

The Chair opened the floor for questions about the written recommendation update.

Edith Akinnawonu asked when the full report on the new IT system requested in Recommendation 1 will be provided.

The E-start programme became operational in October 2008.  Quarter 1 and 2 data for the first year is now available.

Cllr Icoz referred to Recommendation 7 and asked if there has been an increase in GP referrals to Children’s Centres as a result of this work.

The Learning Trust replied that there had been no increase in GP referrals to Children’s Centres yet, but GPs are starting to refer families to Children’s Centres.  The relationship is improving but there is still a long way to go.

Cllr Taylor referred to Recommendation 2 and asked how Children’s Centres were reaching out to parents that do not use them and how are the Learning Trust planning to better engage these parents.

The Learning Trust outlined their Outreach Strategy.  This involves, for example, working with health visitors who can take information to vulnerable families and signpost them to the services offered by Children’s Centres.  Children’s Centres are also working with voluntary and community sector organisations to share information and signpost families to the centres. 

The Learning Trust representatives also gave the example of going out into communities to increase awareness of the services offered in Children’s Centres, for example in December 2008 they toured the Pembury Estate, distributing information and talking to parents about the centres.

Cllr Taylor asked if it is it too early to see how outreach work has worked.

The Learning Trust replied that the new E-start programme produces quarterly reports to show who is using Children’s Centres and this allows centres to plan their services according to needs.

Cllr Krishnaasked about the difference between Children’s Centre Advisory Boards and Strategic Children Centre Boards and how they relate to each other.

The Learning Trust explained that there was a Children’s Centre Advisory Board for each of the Children’s Centres in the borough and these are made up of local stakeholders (for example, parents, health representatives, schools etc).

Further to Cllr Krishna’s point, the Chair asked if it would be possible for the Commission to receive some clarification on the board structures for Children’s Centres and what the different responsibilities are for boards at Centre and Cluster levels.

The Learning Trust representative said they could provide a structural diagram outlining the Children’s Centre management structure and clusters, and showing the decision making process.

The Learning Trust agreed to provide further information about the structure of Children’s Centres to the Commission and to come to the next meeting to answer any questions about it.

ACTION

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.1 Cllr Unluer requested that the Learning Trust be asked to provide an update on the 2003 review focussing on narrowing the gap, particularly for Turkish speaking boys and Caribbean-heritage young people.

The Chair replied that an update report would be requested for the December meeting. 

ACTION

An update on the Narrowing the Gap review will be requested from the Learning Trust for the December meeting.

11.2 There was a discussion amongst the Commission members about the possible need for another meeting to discuss the information they hear in the evidence-gathering meetings. 

11.3 It was agreed that a pre-meeting before the 2^ndNovember meeting would be sufficient.  It was suggested and agreed that the pre-meeting will take place in Committee Room 102 at 6pm, before the guests arrive at 7pm. 

11.4 The Commission members requested notification of the pre-meeting is sent out in advance. 

11.5 Commission members also raised the issue of the Learning Trust sending junior officers to scrutiny meetings, and it was agreed that the Commission wanted more senior officers representing the Learning Trust.  It was agreed that the Scrutiny Officer would invite Alan Wood, Chief Executive of the Learning Trust to the November meeting.

ACTION

The Scrutiny Officer will invite Alan Wood to attend the November meeting.