Agenda item

Neil Goddard introduced the report (Agenda Item 13), which set out a response to questions raised by Trevor Keable at the previous meeting in December. </AI11>

Neil Goddard began by summarising the detailed written response provided in the report which provided an oversight of the work taking place in the areas requested by Trevor Keable. Neil Goddard acknowledged concerns regarding ensuring all children had access to suitable education and that there were sufficient places and services to support children to access provision.

Neil Goddard reported that he had received some further questions and comments from Trevor Keable and he moved on to address these.  

Regarding 4.13 (2) of the report, where an Appendix 2 was referred to but not provided, Neil Goddard confirmed that this was because the piece of work related to Delivering Better Value (DBV) would be circulated after the meeting.

Regarding actions being taken and all of these being pre-exclusion, Neil Goddard confirmed that the preference was to avoid exclusions in the first instance and much work was required to support schools to meet the needs of pupils within school and work with the Local Authority (LA) as proactively as possible regarding the joint responsibility to ensure exclusions were minimised. Regarding expanding alternative provision, Neil Goddard reported that he had discussed this matter with a number of headteachers since joining the LA and this was also within the context of developing the commissioning function, which had been identified as part of DBV. The development of alternative provision and offering a broader breadth of this service was something the commissioning function would be doing. Neil Goddard referred to iCollege, which was an outstanding provision that provided a wide range of services, and acknowledged the need for there to be clarity about funding and services that could be provided and expanded.     

Regarding the Fair Access Protocol, Neil Goodard reported that there was a Pupil Placement Panel (PPP) and fair access arrangements for children deemed difficult to place. The fair access protocol and PPP arrangements were currently under review by Education and Children’s Services, in consultation with schools, to ensure they were fit for purpose. This work was underway and ongoing.

Trevor Keable queried if schools could have students imposed upon them through the fair access protocol and if a school had the right to say no. Neil Goddard explained that the intention of the fair access protocol and pupil placement process was to bring schools together and mutually agree a way forward. Locally this process had worked well over a period of time however, he acknowledged that sometimes challenges were faced that might complicate conversations, particularly if there was not a feeling of equity across schools. The current proposal had not been formed because the current arrangements were failing but it was about ensuring the process was fit for purpose moving forward and all involved were clear about how it worked. Neil Goddard explained that fair access provided the LA with the opportunity to direct a school to take a pupil if necessary however, Neil Goddard emphasised that this was not something the LA was keen to do and the focus was on mutual agreement and collaboration.

Chris Prosser commented that his understanding was that the fair access protocol was being reviewed because it was not working effectively. He noted that there were concerns about the process and the need for clearer procedures. Neil Goddard acknowledged the points raised and agreed that there were areas for improvement. He commented on the secondary headteacher group and that this was a particularly positive arrangement that not all LA areas benefitted from.  The review was not a response to the process being inoperative however, concerns had been raised and these were likely to become more regular due to the pressure faced by schools and the High Needs Block.

Chris Prosser commented that the purpose of iCollege had changed over time, and they needed to think carefully about the provision and what it should be used for moving forward. Chris Prosser felt that capacity at iCollege needed to be increased. Neil Goddard agreed and commented that it was important to ensure iCollege had the opportunity to continue successfully and this could only be delivered through ensuring there was clarity about its purpose and function. It had been very beneficial to the system that iCollege had provided flexibility in terms of adapting and growing its offer but to provide security, its role and how it was funded needed to be defined.

Trevor Keable asked for clarification on the term "enhanced service offerings" for pupil referral units mentioned on page 72 of the report. Neil Goddard explained that this was similar to the point he had made about alternative provision in that they were very fortunate to have iCollege in place however, the needs of children were so diverse they needed to be able to respond to all of these in an appropriate way. The offer available needed to be made as broad as possible and reflect the current need of children in the system. The commissioning resource received would support work with providers to help them understand what was required in West Berkshire so that they could look to how this could be delivered.

The Chair thanked Neil Goddard for his detailed response. Trevor Keable expressed his appreciation for the thorough answers and the time taken to address his questions.

RESOLVED that:

• Appendix 2 referred to in the report would be circulated following the meeting.