Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 December 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2025 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive an update on recommendations and actions following the previous Committee meeting.

Members reviewed progress in relation to actions from previous meeting.

Additional updates were noted as follows:

·       25-2 - It was noted that data on qualifications of i-College students had been provided, but needed to be anonymised before being circulated.

·       25-11 – Any update on resources was subject to completion of the Business Service Review.

·       25-20 - The Chairman confirmed that he had written to the Leader of the Council congratulating him on the Ofsted inspection result.

·       25-24 – It was not known whether Neil Goddard had written to the members of the public before he had left, so Ashley Milum agreed to pick this up.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The following declared an interest in relation to Agenda Items 6 and 7:

·       Councillor Clive Taylor declared that he was a school governor at the Calcot Schools.

·       Councillor Billy Drummond declared that he was a trustee at St Bartholomew’s School.

·       Tony Wilson declared that he was a member of the Summit Multi-Academy Trust.

As their interests were personal and not prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests, they determined to remain to take part in the debates and vote on these matters.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

Purpose: This report sets out the attainment of Children and Young People in West Berkshire and is intended to brief members on the issues this presents for our cohorts of children and young people, and the implication therefore to act within our powers and responsibilities.

Councillor Heather Codling (Executive Portfolio Holder for Children and Family Services) presented the report on Education Outcomes (Agenda Item 6).

Standing Orders were suspended to allow Dame Kate Dethridge (DfE Regional Director for the South East) and Leah Fernandes (DfE Schools Team Leader for Buckinghamshire and Berkshire) to address the Committee.

Dame Kate highlighted the following concerns in relation to non-academy schools in West Berkshire:

·       West Berkshire’s performance in relation to Good Level of Development (GLD), phonics, and Key Stage 2 combined reading/writing/maths were below expectations, with the authority placing near the bottom of national rankings on some measures.

·       Outcomes for disadvantaged pupils (including those eligible for free school meals) were extremely poor.

·       While the School Improvement service had capable staff, it lacked sufficient capacity, with a very small team for such a large number of maintained schools. This limited the ability to hold school leaders to account and provide support.

·       Dame Kate noted that school improvement had been a traded service and queried whether the £325,000 identified in the budget for school improvement was additional funding. Councillor Codling confirmed that it was not, but that the funding was now ring-fenced.

·       Concerns were expressed in relation to a recent universal RISE offer organised by the DfE, which had a disadvantaged-focused programme. Despite being free to attend, only 16 of 20 available places were taken up.

·       It was highlighted that children entered Reception broadly at/above national average levels of attainment, but attainment was not sustaining through primary school.

·       The new Ofsted inspection regime had a greater focus on attendance and attainment, and it was suggested that West Berkshire schools may be negatively affected by this.

·       Dame Kate discussed how scrutiny could focus on performance data and use available DfE tools (e.g., GLD breakdown, phonics trajectory, attendance benchmarking, take-up of hubs/networks).

Dame Kate responded to questions from Members of the Committee:

·       It was confirmed that the DfE challenged Academy Trusts as responsible bodies, and they encouraged local authorities to highlight any concerns they may have in relation to academies with DfE staff.

·       Dame Kate stated that there were no additional direct finances for local education authorities, but she highlighted existing free universal offers, school networks, maths/English hubs, and targeted support. Officers were encouraged to promote these and monitor take-up.

·       It was highlighted that there were examples of good practice in West Berkshire (e.g., a local school had a RISE advisor who would be running a Reception network).

·       Portsmouth was cited as a local authority where some schools had up to 75% of pupils on free school meals, but 90% of pupils achieved GLD. Dame Kate emphasised the importance of having high expectations for disadvantaged children.

·       It was noted that successful headteachers were usually happy to share their experiences, and DfE sought to match schools across the South East. Also, there were plans to expand existing networks for KS2 and KS3 and to look at transitions between primary and secondary schools.

·       Dame Kate stressed the importance of scrutinising performance data in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Purpose: This report provides an overview of exclusions of Children and Young People (CYP) in West Berkshire and is intended to brief members on the implications for our cohorts.

Councillor Heather Codling (Executive Portfolio Holder for Children and Family Services) presented the report on school exclusions (Agenda Item 7).

During the debate, the following points were discussed:

·       Officers confirmed that there was a link between disadvantaged learners and exclusions, and that improving outcomes depended on children being in school.

·       It was noted that there had been an increase in primary school exclusions linked to physical incidents. For secondary schools, exclusions were most often recorded under the DfE code ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’. More detail on specific behaviours was not available.

·       Meetings were held three times a year with secondary school senior leadership teams to review concerns about pupil behaviour, enabling earlier signposting and support. However, capacity constraints meant the service was reliant on schools proactively reaching out for support, and there was not enough capacity to hold equivalent meetings with primary schools.

·       It was highlighted that forthcoming SEND reforms would require schools to produce Inclusion Plans, enabling more proactive discussion and clearer expectations across schools and academies. Also, work was ongoing to establish ‘the ordinarily available provision’, intended to set a benchmark expectation for how schools could meet Equality Act duties for children with additional needs, but this should benefit all children.

·       It was highlighted that collaborative meetings were held six times per year with deputy headteachers from all secondary schools, with strong attendance - these enabled sharing of best practice and discussion of complex cases.

·       It was recognised that there was a need for co-production with secondary headteachers to ensure that the new Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the iCollege supported a reduction in exclusions. The iCollege’s “in-reach” (support and training provided in schools) was seen as a strength and would be a core component of the SLA. It was acknowledged that rising exclusions had created capacity pressures for the iCollege, and challenging conversations would be required to achieve a point of equity.

·       Officers were asked about their understanding of and responses to the root causes of exclusions, particularly in relation to SEND pupils. Officers agreed that there was a need to listen more to young people to understand their needs.

·       Members highlighted the need for data to show the percentage of excluded pupils at each school, since significant differences in the number of pupils on roll made comparisons difficult.

Action: Officers to report exclusions as a percentage pupils on roll.

·       Officers indicated that primary schools received different support to secondary schools - the PIPS Behaviour Intervention Team delivered one-to-one interventions, and support was also provided by the Autism Advisory Team. Schools were signposted to the appropriate services.

·       It was explained that the iCollege could offer up to a full timetable package, but it was important to reintegrate pupils back to their mainstream school and not to have pupils full-time in the iCollege for long.

·       Members indicated that supervised on-site provision within schools had previously reduced exclusions in at least one school. Officers supported the principle of inclusive approaches in schools and indicated that in-reach support from iCollege and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Purpose: To present the Best Start Local Strategic Plan 2026–2028, which sets out the West Berkshire approach to improving early childhood outcomes from pregnancy to age five.

Councillor Heather Codling (Executive Portfolio Holder for Children and Family Services) and Dave Wraight (Service Lead – Youth Justice, Family Hubs and Partnerships) presented the item on the Best Start in Life Local Strategic Plan (Agenda Item 8).

During the debate the following points were discussed:

·       Members noted that the target for reducing inequalities remained below 50%. Officers confirmed that targets were set by central government, but that the ambition locally was to meet and, where possible, to exceed them.

·       Officers were asked if funding allocations would be sufficient to deliver the Plan. Officers confirmed that the allocations had increased following subsequent government updates, but remained lower than that provided under Sure Start. While additional funding was always welcome, assurance was provided that available funding would be spent effectively.

·       Members asked how many parents/families were currently missing out on the services and outcomes described in paragraphs 4.7-4.9. Officers advised that detailed delivery plans and an outcomes framework were being developed, and that a fuller baseline picture would take time. Officers anticipated being able to provide more detailed data after six months.

·       Officers were asked about a reported £40,000 pressure and the impact of this on service delivery. It was explained that this related to historic charges for some sessions, which had since been removed to improve accessibility. The current grant would cover the costs, so there was no ongoing pressure from that change.

·       Members asked what had changed for the target groups and how the Plan would address inequalities. Officers explained that deprivation and isolation could be less visible in rural areas and that the target groups had been identified by both data and the experiences of families.

·       Regarding rural access, officers indicated that urban areas had fixed hub buildings, but pop-up provision was being used to reach rural communities. Officers also referred to joint work with the voluntary and community sector to extend reach.

·       Members asked what had improved in the last 12 months and what tangible changes were expected in the next 12 months. Officers indicated that Best Start had formally commenced on 1 April. West Berkshire benefited from having an established Family Hubs network, which would enable faster delivery than areas starting from scratch. Over the next 12 months, planned developments included a digital offer, expanded parenting provision, and work on home learning environments and parenting packs. Officers emphasised that the most significant impacts on children’s outcomes would be expected over a longer period (five to ten years), consistent with evidence from Sure Start.

 RESOLVED to note the report.

Purpose: To advise the Committee of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council’s Executive and for Members to decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Committee considered the Executive Forward Plan (Agenda Item 9).

It was highlighted that several items had already been added to the Committee’s work programme for review.

RESOLVED that the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Committee.

The Committee considered the proposed Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee Work Programme (Agenda Item 10).

It was explained that following a meeting between the Chairman and senior officers, a number of proposed changes had been made to the Work Programme as outlined in the agenda pack.

It was noted that while the SEND Recovery Plan did not require Member approval, it would be appropriate for this to have a public airing, so it had been added as an agenda item for the next meeting.

Members expressed frustration at the delay in the response to the Children and Young People Mental Health Task Group Report. Officers explained that at the point at which the Task Group had submitted its report, the Integrated Care Board had withdrawn funding from Emotional Health and Wellbeing Services and had moved the running of School Mental Health Teams from local authorities to Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust. This meant that funding and resources were no longer available, and it was not longer within the gift of the local authority to implement the recommendations as proposed.  In addition, there had been changes made to the early intervention response for those on the CAMHS waiting lists. The officer response had been revised from that originally prepared and it was proposed that this would go to the next meeting of the Executive for approval before going back to the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee. It was confirmed that Councillor Dominic Boeck would be invited to attend that meeting in his capacity as Chairman of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee. Also, copies of the report would be made available to the CYP Scrutiny Committee Members as soon as it was published.

Action: Circulate the Response to the Children’s Mental Health Task Group to Members of the CYP Scrutiny Committee.

RESOLVED to note the work programme.