Agenda item

The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Children and Family Services and the Chief Executive concerning an update of Children and Family Services performance at the end of quarter one of 2015/2016. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

It was noted that educational results contained within the report did not include those for Key Stage 4 as these needed validating by the Department for Education before analysis.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

1. Concern was expressed over the increase in the number of children with three or more placements during the year, with the measure being below national averages. It was acknowledged that how a placement was defined, and how placements were recorded on Frameworki could affect changes in performance in this area. It was noted that accurate reporting was a recurring issue from Quarter 4, and that staff did not record placement information uniformly across the Department. Further to this, in 44% of cases analysed, the child or young person had experienced a quick move in placement, often moving to another placement after a one or two night stay. A short stay such as this was classed as a placement for the child or young person and this was frequently the case for children where placements had to be made as a matter of urgency. The Committee was advised that there was an increase in kinship placements, with this placement usually being the second for that child or young person. Whilst the authority was required to make attempts to place children with suitable family members where possible, this was not always successful.
2. In 20% of cases analysed, the child or young person was moved due to challenging behavioural issues. From January 2015 to the end of Quarter 1, it was noted that the Department had seen a rise in the number of 12-15 year olds in the care of the County Council owing to either extremely challenging behaviour, or due to them having either experienced or being at risk of child sexual abuse.
3. The data highlighted that performance with regard to second and subsequent child protection plans had worsened since the last quarter. Consequently, a concern was raised as to the robustness of Child Protection conferences and the indication that some child protection plans were being stepped down too early. It was explained that Child Protection conferences and the outcomes and conclusions of conferences were a product of multi-agency decision making. It was acknowledged that there was further work to be done with all agencies in exploring the length of time it took to affect lasting change in a child’s life, and whether this would have an impact on the step down of child protection plans.
4. The report described that there was a significant theme concerning children becoming subject of second child protection plans due to repeated occurrences of domestic abuse between adults in the household. The Committee was informed that a combined approach to commissioning and addressing instances of domestic abuse in a child protection context had been established across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
5. A concern was expressed over the percentage of five year olds achieving good levels of development. It was questioned whether performance was below national levels due to the fact that some summer-born children were not successful in their applications to defer entry, and that there was a low level of applications generally for deferrals in Leicestershire. The Committee was advised that performance had improved this year, however it was recognised that it was not clear the impact that being a summer-born pupil had on levels of development. The Department for Education were undertaking a piece of work to analyse this issue nationally, and further to this the Director would undertake a piece of work to understand the impact that being a summer-born pupil had on levels of progress within Key Stage 1. It was noted that the County Council had received three applications for deferred entry this year, and that applications went through a rigorous process which took into account the abilities of the child at the time, and considered longer term progression, particularly in relation to transition points. 
6. The percentage of pupils achieving two levels of progress between Key Stage 1 and 2 in Reading and Maths had fallen, though it was noted that the percentage of schools rated as Good or Outstanding by Ofsted had risen, and it was acknowledged that levels of progress was one of several measures that Ofsted used to assess school performance. The Committee was advised that the new inspection regime for schools meant that levels of progress would in the future be assessed more consistently with “deeper dives” being conducted into outcomes for individuals to understand the correlation between the two performance measures and how improvement could be made.  
7. It was queried how data on school performance was collected and analysed, and which schools were required to submit information. It was noted that Key Stage 1 and 2 data was submitted by schools and validated by the local authority before being submitted to the Department for Education. Key Stage 4 data was provided to the local authority by the Department for Education. All schools were required to submit information, and the Committee was assured that any missing data was identified and schools were contacted to provide the information in order to ensure a full accurate picture of school performance across Leicestershire. The Committee was informed that a report detailing the validated Key Stage 4 data was scheduled to be presented at the following meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the Quarter 1 2015/16 Performance Report be noted;

(b)  That the Director of Children and Family Services undertake a piece of work to understand to what extent being a summer-born pupil may affect levels of progress in Key Stage 1, and that once completed, the outcome of the work be circulated to members of the committee for information.