There was an extra Education Committee meeting last week to discuss the ‘Public Value Review’ report on the Schools and Learning Service.

This isn’t as dry as it sounds – there was a mixture of interesting information for now, and important proposals for the future, far enough advanced to have an accompanying ‘action plan’.

The report was presented in the name of Cabinet member responsible for Education, Tim Hall, but had a lot of input from a working party of members of the Committee and the new Assistant Director responsible for Schools and Learning, Peter-John Wilkinson. (I’m impressed by PJ who, when you listen carefully, gives nuanced but clear answers to questions.)

The comments below are from my notes – get a full view of the PVR on the SCC website here

Update on Academies

P.J. Wilkinson reported these have been ‘very attractive to Secondaries’ so that by the end of the year half Surrey’s secondary schools may well have become Academies. In contrast, they’ve had ‘little appeal to primary schools’, which are smaller and have ‘felt discomforted by (the) relative isolation’ of being more fully independent of the Local Authority.

School Improvement – subtext, Surrey’s Coasting Schools

Most interesting, when absolutely everything is being looked at for cuts, is the ‘strong will from SCC to remain an important and influential education authority’ and not refuse to do any work that is not strictly required by statute. Tim Hall, the new Cabinet Member, said: ‘One of our axioms must be every Surrey school a good school. That has not always been our position.’

Examples of the sort of work at risk came out in discussion – Education welfare and specialist teaching services ‘are the  most vulnerable’ though the detailed cuts haven’t been worked out yet.

Overall, a significant decision is whether to go on supporting schools that are not actually failing Ofsted inspections. On the surface children in Surrey schools do very well compared to the rest of the country; but some schools are unjustifiably ‘complacent’. (Just look at the ‘Value added’ scores for Surrey secondary schools, where well thought of schools like Woking High come in below the 1,000 point national average, and while Church schools are standardly above.)

Fortunately although Surrey County Council is deep-dyed Conservative, it’s not hard-line Tax-Payers-Alliance right-wing enough at present to want to wash its hands of responsibility. Peter-John Wilkinson said the following, but it seemed to meet approval from the Cabinet Member and the Committee:

‘[We] want to be [an] activist, not passive, local authority … not [go down the] path of retreat which many authorities of all political colours have taken over the last few months …’

Proposed Organisational changes

These may create economies, but are not solely/primarily for that purpose:

The development of four strong education teams, each led by an area education officer. They would manage the relationships with schools, the services to pupils and families and educational commissioning within their own quadrant

(PJW: ‘[This] has to be done economically, but we should not be paralysed in organisational terms …. I think we can do this without it costing an arm and a leg …)

The appointment of a single leader and leadership team for special and additional education leads giving greater coherence to this key area.

(PJW: ‘Not [currently] perceived as being especially effective … Led at Officer level by several people, decisions [made]by consensus …’)

The Holy Grail of Happily Saving Money …

… is to put fewer children with Special or Additional Educational Needs into very expensive specialist schools if it’s possible to meet their needs equally well closer to home, with the extra gain of making it easier for their families to keep in contact and for them to be part of their local community.

Surrey can’t legally say ‘no, the ideal school is too expensive’. Parents of  ‘statemented’ children can appeal. If they win Surrey is obliged to pay for the school named on the statement.

Most parents don’t want to send their children away, but when it comes to looking at how they should be provided for, they know these schools offer much better access to speech therapists, OTs, and physiotherapists.

There are demonstrably better ways of working with the parents of disabled children, for example ‘Child development clinics in conjunction with the nhs … [Surrey] do it less well than some others authorities do it. In some areas [they] think together about what’s practical, not tell a parent to ask for a very great deal from somebody else. …’  (PJW)

As a result of this thinking, the PVR says:

It is recommended this is addressed urgently with consideration given to how to raise input from local agencies of the National Health Service and the possibility of commissioning an education-based speech and language therapy service.

Which will be remarkable if it happens. Commissioning new services has to cost money. But this is what a lot of people have been saying for years, and will save lots more in the slightly longer run, and be better for the children concerned.

It’s just sad that it takes budget cuts to shake up institutional thinking enough for things to happen.

Organisational trends that will upset some

The report says the move towards all-through primary schools ‘should be continued and, so far as is practical, be accelerated.’

There should be ‘a business case review of the future viability of each sixth form operating with fewer than 150 pupils.

And finally: Extra school places

As ‘any fule [now] kno’ we are in the grip of a slow crisis for school place planning, with rising pupil numbers. I won’t rehearse the story again, but the implications in terms of additional required capital funding are clearly giving the powers-that-be in County Hall a headache. Here’s a final quote from P.J. Wilkinson that you may – or may not – find encouraging:

‘[We’re] looking at standard building techniques and preconstructed schools … [this] probably mean you have uglier schools and more utilitarian schools … but you will have places.’

.

The Boundary Commission have now published their final recommendations for changes to Surrey County Council Divisions. And I’m delighted that they’ve gone with Surrey County Council’s original proposals for Woking, to equalise numbers and get rid of the ungainly Central Division by re-dividing the area covered by Horsell and Central Divisions on a north/south rather than east/west line.

If you haven’t been following this, see my detailed account of why it matters here

If you want to know about areas other than Woking, go to the Local Government Boundary Commission’s full Final Report for Surrey here

In the Summary of the Final Report they write:

In Woking Borough, we have modified our draft recommendations so that they now correspond to Surrey County Council’s original

proposal for a Goldsworth East & Horsell division. Given the fact that the County Council’s proposal provides for better electoral equality and the Commission received some further evidence from local people who cited community interests, we have opted to depart from our draft recommendations in this area.

They give a longer explanation in the full Final Report: 

We based our draft recommendations on the scheme provided by Woking Constituency Conservative Association, following submissions opposing Surrey County Council’s scheme which divided Horsell into two different divisions.  

During Stage Three, we received nine submissions, four of which supported the draft recommendations with the remainder opposing them. Those in support of the draft recommendations stated that linking Goldsworth West to Knaphill and Goldsworth East with Horsell Village best met community interests as these divisions shared many facilities. Respondents stated that Goldsworth East and Horsell have strong ties in terms of schools, particularly Sythwood and Goldsworth Primary schools. A submission from the Goldsworth Park Community Association stated that the proposals put forward by the County Council made the divisions contiguous and that the Horsell community shared recreational and shopping facilities offered by Goldsworth Park. Those opposing the draft recommendations also provided evidence of community identity and supported Surrey County Council’s proposal for the area, stating that the two areas share shops, schools, doctors’ surgeries and other facilities. 

 Having carefully considered all the evidence provided, we consider that on balance, adopting the County Council’s proposal for this area better reflects community identity and provides for better electoral equality. The Goldsworth East & Horsell Village and Knaphill & Goldsworth West divisions would both have only 2% more electors than the county average.

As a resident of Goldsworth Park I am still disappointed that we can’t have a County Division of our own, but as explained in my earlier post, I recognise that this is not practical. In my view the Boundary Commissioners have gone for the fairest option, with the advantage that no political party can say with any confidence whether the new arrangements are likely to benefit them or not in the 2013 elections.

In theory the recommendations could still be overturned by parliament, but I hope our (Conservative) MP will be fair minded enough not to find this necessary.

Congratulations to the Goldsworth Park Community Association and other residents who made the case for this sensible result.

There are now fuller details of the Community Improvement Fund announced at the last Full Council meeting (see below) on the SCC website here.

Scroll down quickly past the stirring quote and the picture of the Leader looking new-leader-ish to the bottom of the page, where you can now find  files giving ’Criteria and guidance’ and a printable application form.

I’m far from convinced this is the best way of handing out your money, but it’s happening – so if you’ve got a good idea for Knaphill or Goldsworth West contact me, or for other areas use the contact information given on the SCC website.

Many are called but few chosen – Lucian makes it to interview for a place at Oxford University.

Will Leonie spend Christmas with Caro – or hospital visiting?

Bad timing: how Chris’s ex-wife wrecks Christmas Eve by giving him what he wants.

Read episode 4 here: ThirteenDecember

.

It should have been a nice a Council Meeting finishing comfortably before lunch, with little stocking-fillers for the staff and residents:

1. There’s going to be a scheme to allow SCC staff to volunteer for two days a year at the Council’s expense.

2. The Leader announced a new ‘Community Improvements Fund’ rather like the previous Leader’s one-off scheme to give grants to environmentally beneficial schemes, but this time for ‘improving community facilities’ ‘making a real difference to people’s lives’ and/or ‘supporting communities to take responsibility for local issues.’

‘Initiatives’ to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, or support the ‘ongoing benefits of the 2012 Olympics’ may also find favour.

The total money on offer is £750,000, with £10,000 to £50,000 for each project. Bids will be accepted from January 2012.

OK, so a number of worthy, well-organised groups will benefit from this, but it still feels to me like fiddling while Rome burns. If there is work that ought to be done, it should be properly funded to start with. This is enough money to keep a number of people occupied filling in forms, assessing proposals, and producing final reports, though I wonder how thinly its effect will be spread across the whole of Surrey.

But hey, if you’re a community group with a good oven-ready project and the necessary form-filling capacity, why not go for it? Especially if it can be badged ‘Jubilee’ or ‘Olympic Heritage.’

Contact James Painter, the Community Partnership Manager, on 07968 833907 for details (currently they seem a bit thin on the SCC website) and get your County Councillor on board as well. If it’s something for Knaphill or Goldsworth West let me know, and I’ll try to help push it along …

Children in Care still missing out

We Liberal Democrats tried to draw attention to the Government’s performance tables relating to Children in Care and to adoption which came out in the 1^st of November. All but two key indicators showed Surrey in the bottom half of the country for performance. Hazel Watson put forward a motion pointing this out and asking for urgent action to look at the issues highlighted by the report.

We got stomped on. Mary Angell, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, issued a statement about the current Ofsted assessment of Surrey’s Children’s services, which is ‘good’, and spoke about the improvements that have been made, and which we are happy to acknowledge. Various others said much the same, criticised Liberal Democrats for bringing such a critical motion, and also criticised Liberal Democrats on the relevant committees. (This includes me)

That’s the nature of political debate, and I won’t pretend to be shocked or surprised. I felt rather like a weak croquet player whose ball has been taken over by a skilled opponent and then walloped to the wrong side of a distant hoop.

But even if the Government figures don’t tell the whole story of ‘where we are on the journey’ now, they still tell a story we should take seriously. We should be looking at how and why other local authorities do better. We also need to acknowledge that there is a cohort of young people we have had parental responsibility for through a number of years and who we have not cared for as well as we should, or as well as I hope children coming into care now can expect, and we have an extra responsibility to do whatever we can to put in extra support as they prepare to leave our care.

Personally I would rather see the £750,000 Community Improvement Fund going to this cause, strongly guided by our own Surrey care leavers.

.

We had the usual mix of general and very local topics at the December meeting of SCC’s Woking Local Committee. I’ve started with the broadest, and worked down subjects of street level interest in my Division only.

Surrey’s Olympics

There was a cheerful update on the arrangements for Olympic cycling races coming to Surrey – Day 1 of the Olympics, 28^th July, will see the Men’s road cycling, coming through Surrey. 29^th is the women’s event. Then the Time Trials on the 4^th of August will cover a shorter route, but still go through Kingston and Elmbridge.

Surrey is preparing for 1 million spectators, with television audiences of a billion. Sixteen teams are already committed to training in Surrey, and SCC has been ‘sending out Christmas cards all round the world’ to try to get more to come and spend their money here.

We were told the ‘practise race’ had gone well, with ‘not a single arrest on the day’, although this was only a week before the riots in London. One problem had been that the 3,800  stewards needed came from as far away as Newcastle, and didn’t have the very local information that would have helpful; but the team want to recruit 450 local volunteers specifically for Surrey, to give been information to spectators on the day. Communication, eg about when the barriers could be removed, also needed improving.

The hope is to keep spectators happily in Surrey after the race has flashed past by putting big screens up in open spaces, for example West Byfleet Recreation Ground.  SCC hopes it’ll be good for Surrey businesses, as well as fun for residents. (Personally I wouldn’t bank on the business but try for the fun.)

Youth services

A lot’s been going on behind the scenes to get the new ‘commissioning model’ of providing services for Young People up and ready to take over at the start of the next financial year. The paper brought to this Local Committee about the Woking ‘prevention’ budget (also updating to some extent on the Youth Centres)  makes it easier to bring this out into the open.

We approved the general principles of the way the money for prevention work would be split among the different areas of Woking, and the sorts of needs that should be met.

Separately from this, details of what will happen in the Youth Centres are slowly becoming clearer – it’s almost certain that most activity at Lakers, Sheerwater, and Woking Youth Centres will be run by the Woking YMCA as part of the ‘Surrey Youth Consortium’. None of Surrey’s youth workers are being made redundant – I don’t know the exact arrangements, but some of them will still be working in the Youth Centres.

(At this point I also don’t know what the plans are for WYAC, the Woking Youth Arts Centre in Knaphill, but I’m hopeful that the work done there will carry on, and even increase.)

The ‘Youth Support Service’, combining the Youth Justice Service and Connexions, will work from the Youth Centres; and Surrey is piloting ‘Skill Centres’ to support basic learning.

This should be an improvement on the present situation. It’s worrying that it’s all happening with less money – a third or a quarter less in the next few years, depending on the figures you look at, before taking account of inflation or the increased need with rising youth unemployment.

It will be fantastic  if in eighteen months Lakers (for example) is a well-used and recognised hub of local activity for young people. But what will this say about the way things were run until necessity provoked reform?

Woking – Victoria Way crossing

The unfinished crossing of Victoria Way for bicycles, parallel with the pedestrian crossing, continues to be an annoyance. This is a long saga: it was going to allow cycles to cross in one go, while pedestrians crossed in two phases, but there were ‘issues’ around signal controls and whether it could be done at all. Plans changed to a standard toucan crossing, but wider than normal to accommodate cycles and pedestrians. While this was going on the signals contractors had their own organizational problems, made worse by the economic situation. The Surrey Officer concerned says he has been ‘very robust behind the scenes’ but ‘I’m very fed up with having to field questions about it …  I just want to see it done … I can only apologise for the fact it has taken as long as it has …’

Member’s Allocation (smallish ‘seed corn’ grants for local organisations)

So far this financial year I’ve got some money from the ‘Members Allocation’ for Goldsworth Care, for the Foster’s Lane Residents Association, and to get the Finch Close grit bin. Knaphill and Goldsworth West haven’t yet had their share of this money, intended primarily to support community groups with one-off sums – from a few hundred pounds to around £5,000.

Please talk to me if your club, church, or other group has a project that would benefit people in Knaphill and Goldsworth West, and needs a ‘seed-corn’ grant.

If you’ve more ambitious plans, a new fund for larger ‘infrastructure’ projects in the coming Jubilee/Olympics year has just been announced – more information coming in my next post on this site.

Grit bins

– the new grit bins for Knaphill in Sparvell Road, Queen’s Road, Lane End Drive and Finch Close aren’t in place yet because the 150 bins ordered for the whole County got used up elsewhere. More should be delivered and filled before Christmas (I’m told). These are only on a four-year deal, and may need funding again at the end of that time. (There are two bins in Strathcona Gardens provided by the developers, and these are also at last being brought into the SCC network, and should be filled with the others from now on.)

Wanted Yellow Lines

Requests for parking controls (yellow lines) have been turned down at least for the moment for Sappho Court, Alexandra Gardens, Burnham Close, Inkerman Way, Nursery Road, and Tolldene Close. But residents’ requests for double yellow lines at the junction of Wood Lane with Victoria Road have been agreed ‘to maintain sight lines and road safety on the junction.’

Road flooding in the Broadway, Knaphill

This is due for investigation by the NW area Highways team, following a question from resident Phil Stubbs. It is a long-standing problem, improved but not solved when extra gulleys were put in at the same time as the new pedestrian crossing.

.

In this month’s episode:

- FiTs are hit and Sarah has to turn round a disgruntled Party member before her selection meeting.

- Poppy has her 17th birthday, and combats poppy fascism.

-  Leonie has something worth worrying about.

Read it here in ThirteenNovember

.

Good news today! David Hodge, the new SCC Leader, has abandoned plans to ‘Community partner’ the second tranche of libraries, which included Knaphill and West Byfleet.

You can see the SCC press release here.

(Some small concessions for the first tranche, with a member of staff for 20% of current opening hours, but no further climb-down yet. )

But very good news for Knaphill!

.

I’ve spent much of November wiped out by a virus, and ended up missing more meetings than I attended.

And the depressing question came to mind: did it matter whether I was there or not? Do I make a difference?

SACRE at Sythwood

I was particularly sorry to miss the meeting of the Surrey Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (or ‘Sacre’)  held at Sythwood school. The Sacre’s job is to guide RE and collective worship in maintained schools. Once every four years it changes into a ‘Syllabus Conference’ to write the approved RE syllabus for Surrey. There are four different interest groups represented on it: Councillors from the Local Education Authority, ie Surrey County Council; teachers; the Church of England; and other denominations/religions, together with one co-opted humanist.

I had suggested at the last meeting we should ask if we could meet at Sythwood School, and not just because it’s conveniently close to home. All maintained schools are legally required to provide an ‘act of worship’ of a ‘broadly Christian’ character every day, unless they get a ‘determination’ from the local SACRE allowing them to vary the form of worship. Sythwood’s ‘determination’ is based on recognition that when you allow from children coming from non-religious homes the largest religious group is children from Muslim families. Sythwood assemblies are strong on a careful inclusiveness, so that children are asked, for example, to ‘think about’  things rather than to ‘pray’. Their approach seemed very sensible, and I’m glad there was a majority vote in favour of the ‘determination’ even though I couldn’t be there.

Children in care still miss out

Another meeting I was sorry to miss was the ‘Children and families’ committee on the 15^th of November. This was eleven days after the unexpected Government publication at the start of National Adoption Week of a set of league tables of local authorities demonstrating how badly children in care fare. It showed Surrey among the lower performing local authorities on a number of criteria, including the percentage of children going missing from care, children failing to reach level 4 for Maths and English before going to secondary school, and the number of youngsters who had been in care at the age of sixteen then not in employment, education or training at nineteen.

Coming to the Committee Meeting there was a defensive, factual report from Officers about Children in Care in Surrey. It’s not three years since Surrey’s Children’s services were found ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted, in large part because of our failure to look after children in care well enough. A lot of work has been done since then, and much is said about being ‘on a journey’ of improvement, and not being complacent. There are still questions that will not go away, and there will be more opportunities to ask them

Private meetings

The other meetings I missed because of  being ill were ‘private’; not held in public, and with none of the papers concerned – agendas, minutes, reports – made public. Perversely, not being there makes them easier to write about because I’m not at risk of breaching confidence by writing about what happened. However the very existence of properly-constituted meetings cannot be secret.

Two of these were Woking Local Committee meetings.

The first was the Youth Task Group, made up of lots of people who have an interest in young people, and in theory with some real young people there as well, though in practice the three places held for them have not been filled – the young people themselves seem to elude the youth workers who are tasked with involving them. (Imagine a scenario where we meet in a youth centre and order in pizza, and then eat it ourselves.)

In spite of such setbacks, I am still a little optimistic about the possibility of getting our youth centres better used, and will be free to write more about this next month after the Woking Local Committee meeting in December.

The second Local Committee meeting was an annual do that started several years ago as an ‘away day’, immediately got cut down to an ‘away evening’, and then relocated back from a catered do at a local golf club to sandwiches at Surrey’s own Quadrant Court. It’s a chance for Borough and County Councillors and Officers to look ahead to future issues and share knowledge and ideas. I couldn’t be indiscrete about it if I wanted to, because I haven’t yet tracked down any more information or papers.

From my point of view as a County Councillor, the meeting of the Woking Borough Council ‘Brookwood Farm’ steering group was one of the more unusual that I missed.

The steering group brings together Cala Homes who are developing the Brookwood Farm site in the North-West quadrant above Brookwood Crossroads, and Woking Borough Council, including the Councillors representing Brookwood and Knaphill. Over the last few months, it has also included the Surrey County Councillors for the patch. This is Woking’s baby, both as the planning authority and as the owner of some of the land involved. What I want to do is keep an eye on the interests of future residents when it comes to the provision of Surrey services.

Highways – including streetlights – are a County responsibility. But Surrey’s current policy will make it harder than ever to get new roads ‘adopted’ into the road network. In some places developers have done a deal with Woking Borough Council so that Woking takes on responsibility. In others, roads remain private, entirely the responsibility of residents. If their Council tax is not going to pay for their roads and lights to be maintained, new residents need to be totally clear about this when they buy. Otherwise they are going to feel cheated.

Not surprisingly that’s just a small part of the discussion. There’s the Country Park, which covers about half the site; questions about the impact of the new development on existing houses; on-going discussion about the proportion of small and large homes, ‘affordable’ and fully commercial. I don’t fully understand the process, but all this discussion will certainly inform it even though no formal decisions are made by this group.

So did it matter whether I was there or not? Do I make a difference?

Not a lot, I think is the answer.

This sort of committee work is all to do with argument and influence. As an opposition Councillor I can say things members of the ruling group can’t.

On the other hand, my arguments have to be better to have an effect. That effect is likely to be cumulative, but is rarely if ever going to be decisive. There are a few times when if something is plain wrong you just have to be there to speak up against it, whether you win or not. But for most of the time, the closer politics gets to the very local level, the more consensus and compromise become the best way to get the best results for the residents who have elected me to speak on their behalf.

Does local politics make a difference, in the face of the big threats to our lifestyle posed by global economic shifts, global warming, Britain’s involvement for ideological/economic reasons in wars worldwide?

I’ll pass on that one for now.

A long-awaited piece of good news for people living in the more recently built extension to Ivydene in Knaphill: Surrey County Council has at last ‘adopted’ this stretch so that the whole of the road will now be maintained by SCC.

.