A report will be presented by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) which constitutes the statutory annual report of the Authority’s Virtual School (Document “L”). The report uses data for those children who were in the care of this authority for a year or more as of 31 March 2017.

The report highlights the work undertaken by the Virtual School, the Local Authority and its partner agencies to improve outcomes for children in care from Early Years stage up to targeted care leavers aged 25. The report includes information in respect of progress and attainment for all key stages, It also reflects on the achievements of the Virtual School and identifies areas for future development to try and achieve the best outcomes for the children in the Authority’s care.

Recommended –

That Document “L” be noted.

                                                            (Ken Poucher – 01274 439623)

A report was presented by the Deputy Director (Children’s Social Care) which constituted the statutory Annual Report of the Authority’s Virtual School (VS) (Document “L”). The report used data for those children who had been in the care of the authority continuously for a year or more as of 31 March 2017.

The report highlighted the work undertaken by the Virtual School, the Local Authority and its partner agencies to improve outcomes for children in care from Early Years stage up to targeted care leavers aged 25. The report included information in respect of progress and attainment for all key stages, it also reflected on the achievements of the Virtual School and identified areas for future development to try and achieve the best outcomes for the children in the Authority’s care.

In presenting the report the Virtual School Head highlighted the following points:

·         This was the first full year of the VS being placed within the remit of the Deputy Director - Education, Employment and Skills and this had given a greater degree of stability and allowed the VS to pursue more strategic aims and priorities.

·         The numbers of looked after children (LAC) had continued to rise. 494 had been of school age and continually looked after during this period. At the time of the Panel there were 596; 140 of whom were educated in out of authority schools and 286 having some form of Special Educational Need (SEN).

·         In Reception there had been a strong rise in those achieving a Good Level of Development (GLD); this was considered to be as a result of the work undertaken in schools and also the support provided by the VS team which had included a focus on Personal Education Plans (PEPs).

·         In Key Stage 1 there had been a good rise of 11% in the numbers of children achieving the combined Reading, Writing and Maths standard. The number achieving the Year 1 Phonics standard had remained fairly stable.

·         For Key Stage 2 there had been a rise of 7% in respect of the combined RWM standard.

·         For Key Stage 4 the parameters for assessment/measurement had been altered and would change again next year so it was not possible to compare like for like outcomes.

·         There had been a strong focus on PEPs this year and 96% of the children had a PEP.  A significant amount of training had been provided on the production of a good PEP and quality assurance had been undertaken. It was considered that the quality of PEPs had improved significantly.

·         The proportion of Pupil Premium Plus (PPP) grant that was retained by the VS was used for a number of purposes including: supporting social workers at PEP meetings; ensuring a consistent PEP format; ensuring that an initial PEP meeting took place within ten days of a child coming into care; supporting designated teachers; and the provision of Associates to support educational and pastoral needs.

·         The number of Associates had been increased, some of whom were teachers and some teaching assistants. The Associate provision permitted a rapid response to be provided to schools or individual children when required.  This service had received 100% positive feedback.

In response to Members’ questions he explained that:

·         A LAC could not be placed in a school that was classed as ‘inadequate’ and, only in exceptional circumstances, one classed as ‘improving’.  If a school entered one of those categories whilst a LAC was in attendance a decision would have to be made about what was best for that child.  More regular monitoring of the child’s progress would be put in place and if it was considered that there was a problem the child would be moved; the priority was ensuring that LAC received the best possible education outcomes. This also applied to academies.

·         The child’s opinion would be taken into account but, usually, if their needs were not being met at a school the child would not be happy anyway.

·         Although the VS could direct a maintained school to take a LAC, an Academy could refuse to take them and any dispute would then have to be taken up with the Secretary of State.  However, the VS did have a very good relationship with the academies in the district.

·         The role of the VS was just the same for those LAC placed out of area and local associates had been commissioned when necessary.

·         A number of other local authorities had shown an interest in the Associates programme and how it operated.

·         The production of PEPs was quite a specialist area and came within the remit of the designated teacher.

·         New statutory guidance on the role of the designated teacher was expected to be published in due course.

·         When PEPs became a statutory responsibility academies would be held accountable for their completion.

·         The VS Head undertook to send a link to Members in respect of the on-going Government consultation in respect of ‘Promoting the Education of LAC and previously LAC’.

·         If a school was unaware that a child was adopted they would obviously not claim PPP; a parent had the right not to disclose this information.

Members briefly discussed the issues associated with disclosure that a child was adopted in order that a school could claim PPP for them; it was noted that a child may not wish to be identified as an ‘adopted child’ and that as the funding was associated with a particular child it had to be spent directly on them.

The Deputy Director (Children's Social Care) commented that:

·         The VS was providing great support to those young people in residential homes.

·         Foster carers were trained on the role of PEPs.

·         The attendance achieved for LAC was something to be proud of.  Foster carers did a great job and the authority was very grateful for their contribution; some foster carers had to travel long distances on a daily basis to maintain young people’s attendance.

Resolved –

That the Virtual School Head and his team be thanked for the work they do and the impact that this is having in improving educational outcomes for the district’s looked after children.

NO ACTION