Present at the meeting:
- Councillor R Winkworth (Chairman)
- Councillor S F Ell (Vice Chairman)
- Councillor Mrs B Bourne
- Dr Councillor C M Cottam
- Councillor R J Derricutt
- Councillor Ms L E Fagan
- Councillor J D Hodgkinson
- Councillor E N Houlton
- Councillor M Klieve
- Councillor C Sweeney
- Councillor W J Wilkes
Co-opted Members
- Mr D Barber
- Reverend R Buckley
- Reverend Deacon R Moore
- Mr G Wolstenholme
- Councillor Mrs S Loudon – Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People
Officers in attendance
- Gary Finch – Principal Officer – Overview and Scrutiny
- Roisin Beressi – Senior Solicitor
- Kay Cullen – Trainee Committee Clerk
- Officers presenting reports
- Nick Hudson – Executive Director – Children and Young People’s Services
- Trish Anderson – Service Director - Strategy and Commissioning
- Sue Elliott – Head of Service - Strategy and Commissioning
- Janet Newton – Service Director – Schools for the Future
- Jill Clarke – Head of Service - Learning
36 Apologies for absence: Councillors Mrs K Aldred, Miss J Atherton, M A Dewhurst and T W Halliwell and Mrs K Stokes.
37 Minutes: The minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 17 September and 22 October (Call-in) 2009 were approved as correct records.
38 Whipping Declarations: Government guidance expected Members of the Scrutiny Committee not to act in accordance with party whipping and that, if they did, they were to declare it.
There were no declarations made.
39 Report on educational outcomes 2008-2009: The Head of Service – Learning, Jill Clarke, presented a report, which would be considered by Cabinet on 19 November 2009. The report informed Members of the standards achieved by pupils in Wigan schools for the 2008-2009 academic year.
The report set out the outcomes for children in the 2008/09 academic year and outlined how Wigan had performed in relation to other authorities where comparator information was available. It also identified where there were changes in the levels of performance, what action was planned to address areas for development and what the expected level was for each educational stage. Significant improvements in educational outcomes were identified. However, much was still needed to improve the outcomes for the pupils who were more disadvantaged than their peers.
Members asked a number of questions, which included the following salient points:-
- As a Council, do we know why the gap between those children who have free school meals and their peers who do not had widened during 2008/09?
- Why do we report on the gap between those children who have free school meals and their peers who do not?
- Did these figures include ‘looked after children’?
The Head of Service – Learning, advised Members that the department was looking into the reasons to why the gap had widened between those children who have free school meals and their peers who do not, with staff and School improvement partners, who worked in the schools, helping with the research. The Executive Director informed Members that the Council was expected to report on this, as it was national requirement and Government imperative. Members were informed that the figures included ‘looked after children’.
Resolved: The Committee:-
- thanks the Head of Service - Learning for presenting the report; and
- notes the standards achieved by pupils in Wigan Schools.
40 Building Schools for the Future - Future Governance and Contractual Agreements: The Service Director – Schools for the Future, Janet Newton, presented a report, which outlined the steps to be taken to complete the contractual arrangements for this project and the future governance arrangements including the joint working arrangements with Salford and the Local Education Partnership. The report also considered the Strategic Partnering Agreement, which the Council would enter into with the Local Education Partnership to deliver the Building Schools for the Future initiative in Wigan.
The Service Director apologised and explained that because of the financial close timescales, this report had already been considered by the Cabinet (minute 93 refers).
Members were invited to comment on the content of this report and to note the progress being made on the Building Schools for the Future initiative in Wigan.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report.
Resolved: The Committee:
- thanks the Service Director – Schools for the Future for presenting the report; and
- notes the future governance and contractual agreements as approved by Cabinet.
41 Redistribution of school balances: The Executive Director of Children and Young People’s Services, Nick Hudson, presented a report, which informed Members of the level of school balances as at 31 March 2009, and listed options that would be considered by Cabinet on 19 November 2009.
The Executive Director informed Members that it would be the Schools Forum that would be asked to consider the appropriate use for the recovered 2008/09 balance and not Cabinet or Council.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report.
Resolved: The Committee:-
- thanks the Executive Director of Children and Young People’s Services for presenting the report; and
- endorses the redistribution of the excess school balances identified within the report into the 2010/2011 schools budget.
42 School competition criteria: The Service Director – Schools for the Future, presented a report, which would be considered by Cabinet on 19 November 2009. The report advised Members of the factors that Cabinet should take into consideration when considering the proposals that would come forward as a result of the school competition process.
Members were invited to comment on the content of this report and to note the process for judging proposals.
Members asked questions and welcomed the new proposed scoring matrix.
Resolved: The Committee thanks the Service Director for presenting the report.
(Councillor M Klieve declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in this item because he is a school Governor for Golborne High School appointed by the Council).
43 Change of status of Abraham Guest High School to become a Foundation school and part of a National Challenge Trust: The Head of Service – Learning, presented a report, which would be considered by Cabinet on 19 November 2009. The purpose of the report was to consult with Members on the proposal to change the status of Abraham Guest High School from community to foundation so that it would benefit from the funding and support gained from the National Challenge Trust initiative.
Members gave comments and asked a number of questions, which included the following salient points:-
- What would happen to the students that do not achieve five graded A GCSEs?
- What affect would this have on Wigan and Leigh College?
Members were informed that Winstanley College was under new leadership and that there was an attempt to change the reputation of the college from an elitist College to a College that promoted excellence and one that helped other institutes.
The Executive Director advised Members that the department was engaging with all Colleges in the borough. Wigan and Leigh College was being encouraged to participate with Golborne and Lowton, if it wanted to be a member of a Trust.
Resolved: The Committee:-
- thanks the Head of Service – Learning for presenting the report; and
- endorses the proposal to change the status of Abraham Guest High School from community to foundation status.
44 Outcome of Stage 2 and 3 Consultation on the Proposed Closure of Montrose School, Norley Hall: The Service Director – Schools for the Future, presented a report, which would be considered by Cabinet on 19 November 2009. The report informed Members of the outcome of Stage 2 and 3 of the consultation for the proposal to close Montrose School. Members were invited to comment on the content of this report and to note the outcome of the consultation.
Members gave comments and asked a number of questions, which included the following salient points:-
- Had any Cabinet Members or Senior Officers visited Montrose school since the process began?
- Why was consideration being made on the future use of the Montrose School building at the Cabinet meeting held on 13 August 2009. (minute 54 refers)
- Was the closure of Montrose School purely based on finaincial reasons
- Had prospective pupils been directed to other special schools by the local authority to ensure falling role numbers continued
- As a Committee we should acknowledge the amount of support the school had received to help keep it open. (section 2.2 of the report refers)
- One of the schools proposed to receive pupils from Montrose School was Hope School, which the Committee had already expressed serious concerns in relation to potential overcrowding.
- On page 94 of the report the head teacher of Hope School stated ‘we will be full, but we can accommodate them’ was the school full or not?
- After the recent review of the room legend at Hope School the school now had the capacity to accommodate over 200 pupils. (before the review 120 pupils) What was the exact figure? (This was a very big increase from 120, over 80%)
- What process had the department been through to approve the significant increase in admissions at Hope School and who had approved the increase?
- The Schools Admissions Code published by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (section 1.21) stated that if an admission authority for a maintained school wished to increase the admission number of a school after their admission arrangements had been determined, as a result of a major change in circumstance, they must refer a variation to do this to the schools adjudicator. Had this been done?
- Were plans in place to build the necessary class rooms required to accommodate the additional children now expected to attend Hope School?
- Concern relating to overcrowding, especially for children with special needs and the equipment that they required which could result in a serious accident and possibly legal claims against the Council. Therefore if the Cabinet were confident that Hope School would not be overcrowded then would they have any objection to an independent government inspection to reassure parents that Hope School would be a safe environment for their children.
- Was it correct that Hope School was so full that they were being taught in the neighbouring Community Centre?
- At 3.2 of the report it stated that the governing body of Montrose School had expressed concern that the Local Authority had failed to meet some aspects of the Special Education Needs Improvement Test. What was the Council’s response to this?
- Before Montrose School was taken into special measures was the schools capacity ever full?
- If the proposal was agreed how would the budget of Montrose School (£892,532) be reinvested?
Members were informed that none of the Cabinet Members had visited Montrose School during the consultation period. The Executive Director had not visited the school but many Senior Officers of the Council had been to the school and had worked very closely with it.
The Executive Director advised Members that the questioning of what the future use of the building could be was not an unusual question to be asked at this stage and that it was common practice. The same questions had been asked regarding Pembec School, Norley Hall and Hesketh Fletcher School, Atherton. The Council protects its financial interest and use of capacity resources.
He reported that the closure of Montrose School was partly for financial purposes, but not the only factor. From a professional view, keeping the School open was not the best decision.
The Executive Director informed Members that he had not received any complaints in relation to parents with children with special education needs (SEN) not being allowed to put their child into education at Montrose School and that they had been steered away from this choice. He assured Members that any complaints would be fully investigated.
In relation to the concerns of Hope School’s capacity and overcrowding, no one had suggested that all children from Montrose School be relocated to Hope School. The admission number of the school had not been changed and a net capacity assessment had been undertaken. The assessment shows how much room we have for pupils legally. There had not been an application for an increase in the admission number.
The Executive Director advised Members that the Council had met all the requirements of the SEN Improvement Test and if needed he could provide the Committee with more information.
Members were informed that even before Montrose School was put in to special measures it had never reached its full capacity.
The Executive Director informed Members that the children’s funding would follow them to where they carried on their education and that any surplus money would go back into the schools budget and would be ring fenced to provide suitable education.
Resolved: The Committee:-
- thanks the Service Director for presenting the report; and
- recommends that Cabinet reconsider the proposal to close Montrose School and to consider a revitalisation programme for the School.
(Councillor R Winkworth declared personal and non-prejudicial interest in this item because she is the Vice-Chair of Governors at Hope Schoo,l appointed by the Council. Mr G Wolstenholme declared personal and non-prejudicial interest in this item because he is a School Governor for Platt Bridge Community School.)
45 National Support Team (NST) findings: The Head of Service – Strategy and Commissioning, Sue Elliot, gave a presentation, which informed Members of the findings of the teenage pregnancy National Support Team (NST) visit in October 2009.
The Head of Service, informed Members that the lack of acceleration in reducing teenage pregnancy had placed Wigan amongst 22 areas nationally to come under ministerial scrutiny. The NST visit in October was part of the ministerial support and challenge process.
The NST highlighted priority action recommendations in the following areas:-
- strategic/ organisational arrangements;
- data collection and analysis;
- sexual health and contraceptive services; (CASH)
- integrated youth support; and
- communication.
The NST highlighted that Wigan was doing well with the following:-
- low rates of repeat teenage abortions;
- low rates of repeat teenage births; and
- continuing excellent practice in supporting teenage parents.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report.
Resolved: The Committee:-
- thanks the Head of Service for the presentation; and
- requests that a update on teenage pregnancy be brought back to this Committee at its meetings on 14 January and 11 March 2010.
46 Machinery of government: The Service Director – Strategy and Commissioning, presented a report, which would be considered by Cabinet at its meeting to be held on 19 November 2009.
The report:-
- provided a brief overview of the 14-19 reforms;
- outlined the organisational changes taking place from 1 April 2010 as part of the ‘Machinery of Government’ changes;
- clarified the Local Authority responsibilities; and
- provided an overview of Local Implementation.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report.
Resolved: The Committee:-
- thanks the Service Director for presenting the report;
- notes the changes taking place from 1 April 2010 and the local plans for the implementation of these;
- requests that an update on the machinery of Government changes be brought back to this Committee at its meeting held on 14 January 2010.
47 Primary School Provision: Permission to Consult on the Provision of Additional School Places: The Chairman agreed to this additional item being taken as urgent, the special circumstance being the need to obviate any delay.
The Service Director – Schools for the Future presented a report, which would be considered by Cabinet at its meeting to be held on 19 November 2009. The report advised Members of the predicted shortfall in primary school places from 2010 onwards in parts of the borough.
Members asked a number of questions and commented on the various aspects of the report.
Resolved: The Committee:
- thanks the Service Director for presenting the report; and
- endorses the recommendations as set out for Cabinet.
The meeting was adjourned at 9.15pm to be reconvened on Wednesday 18 November 2009 at 6.00pm to consider one remaining item.
Meeting reconvened at 6.00 pm on 18 November 2009
Present for this part of the meeting
- Councillor R Winkworth (Chairman) Councillor J D Hodgkinson
- Councillor S F Ell (Vice Chairman) Councillor M Klieve
- Councillor Mrs K Aldred Councillor C Sweeney
- Councillor Miss J Atherton Councillor W J Wilkes
- Councillor Mrs B Bourne
- Councillor Mrs S Loudon – Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People.
Officers in attendance
- Nick Lamper – Democratic Services Manager
- Kevin Lawson – Service Director Borough Solicitor
- Janet Lumley – Administrative Officer
Officers presenting reports
- Nick Hudson – Executive Director – Children and Young People’s Services
- Janet Newton – Service Director – Schools for the Future
48 Apologies for absence: Dr Councillor C.M. Cottam, Councillors R J Derricutt and E N Houlton, Mr D Barber, Reverend R Buckley, Reverend Deacon R Moore and Mr G Wolstenholme.
49 Building Schools for the Future: Outcome of stage 3 consultation on proposals to discontinue Hesketh Fletcher C E High School, enlarge Westleigh High School and enlarge Hindley High School: The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director Children and Young People’s Services, Nick Hudson, jointly presented with Service Director, Janet Newton, detailing the results of consultations which had taken place on stages 2 and 3 of the statutory consultation on proposals for Hesketh Fletcher C E High School, Westleigh High School and Hindley High school. Members asked a number of questions which included the following salient points:-
- What help had been offered to the Headteacher and management of Hesketh Fletcher High School to assist in raising the standard of education provided there?
- Could Councillors have an explanation of an approach made to this Council by Chester University purporting to suggest that help could be given to turn Hesketh Fletcher High School into an Academy;
- Was information available as to how many children would be likely to qualify for free travel passes if the decision were taken to close the school?
- Had sufficient weight been given to the views of the signatories on the two petitions against closure?
- The proposals could lead to increased bus use by children attending schools further from home, which may have an impact in terms of the carbon footprint that the Council is striving to reduce.
The Executive Director and Service Director, Schools for the Future, answered questions and assured Members that a detailed support package had been in place since 2007 to help the Headteacher and management team of Hesketh Fletcher School. The position in relation to the late suggestion of involvement by the University of Chester was clarified. It was explained that an exercise in determining which children would qualify for free travel could be carried out at this stage but would be of limited value as it could only involve modelling based on broad assumptions until it had been determined which alternative schools, if any, individual children would attend. An options appraisal on school transport arrangements would be carried out at the appropriate time.
In response to a question, the Executive Director undertook to provide information on the relative levels of funding provided to each of the three schools in the recent past. He also confirmed that the hardship fund which would be put in place would have scope to deal with issues of genuine need around the provision of replacement school uniforms.
It was suggested that, considering the size of Atherton, a relatively small number of residents had actually attended meetings to voice their disapproval of the proposals and that the overriding requirement was for good quality education at schools accessible to the children of the area.
Resolved: The Cabinet:-
- subject to entering into the necessary BSF agreements and the release of funding, approve conditionally the proposals to:-
(a) discontinue Hesketh Fletcher C E High School with effect from 31 August 2012;
(b) enlarge Westleigh High School to increase the capacity from 775 to1250 with effect from 1 September 2012; and
(c) enlarge Hindley High School to increase the capacity from 935 to 1125 from September 2012;
2. and, in so doing, to:-
(a) undertake an urgent and extensive travel plan assessment, including an option appraisal on transport arrangements for Atherton secondary age children to alternative schools, the outcome being reported to Cabinet;
(b) ensure that due care and support is given to any children affected by the proposals; and
(c) carry out a full assessment of the out of school activities currently provided at Hesketh Fletcher High School and how they can be accessed.
(Councillors J Atherton, S Ell, J D Hodgkinson and W JWilkes requested that their votes against the resolution be recorded in the minutes).
(Councillor K Aldred declared a prejudicial interest in this item as she had applied for a place at one of the schools for one of her children and left the meeting during discussion thereon).
