Agenda item
Cabinet Q & A - Cabinet Member for Education, Young People & Children's Social Care (20.05)
A question and answer session with Deputy Mayor Bramble on pre-agreed policy areas:
a) Free School Meals and Food Poverty in Schools;
b) School Estates Strategy.
Minutes:
5.1 Cabinet members who have responsibility for children and young people's services are invited to the Commission annually to enable members to scrutinise services within their portfolio. The Commission may identify up to three service areas on which to focus questioning which the Cabinet member can provide verbal responses. For this session, Deputy Mayor Bramble and Cabinet Member for Education, Young People and Children’s Social Care was invited to respond to questions on 2 policy areas which the Commission had selected:
· Free School Meals (FSM) and Childhood Food Poverty;
· Next steps in school estate strategy.
5.2 Since the time when the policy areas were agreed and questions submitted in November 2023, members noted that there had been a number of key developments which had taken place in relation to these policy areas:
1. The Mayor of London had announced the extension of the free universal FSM provision for all primary school pupils to July 2025.
2. The Cabinet decision to close / merge schools was called-in and discussed by the Scrutiny Panel on the 9th January 2024. The focus of that discussion was on the evidence relating to the decision to close /merge the schools. The focus for this session is on what happens next, those plans to support children, families and their schools agreed for closure / merger and future preparations for likelihood of ongoing falling rolls in both primary and secondary school sectors.
Questions on Free School Meals (FSM) and Childhood Food Poverty;
5.3 Can the Cabinet member update the Commission on the Local Authority’s work to address childhood food poverty and support the extension of FSM in schools (as set out in the recommendations of the Tackling Food Poverty in Education report), in particular:
1. The development of a local action plan to support the strategy and how this is being overseen and implemented by the Cost of Living Board;
2. Setting up of School Food Trust to support schools to carry on FSM provision after cessation of Mayor of London’s FSM programme (7/24);
3. Plans to establish a local FSM auto-enrolment procedure for local parents and schools;
4. How local voluntary sector organisations are being supported to work with local schools to provide healthy, nutritious and cost effective school meals;
5. Changes to Capital Programme to facilitate maintained schools to update and or extend school kitchen facilities:
6. How the £300k of additional investment announced in August has been used to support the delivery of the above plans;
7. Progress in developing planning restrictions which prevent new fast food outlets within 250 metres of schools and education settings.
5.4 The following is a summary of Deputy Mayor Bramble’s response to the questions above:
· Given the introduction of FSM across London by the Mayor of London, there has had to be a change of focus to ensure that there was longer term sustainability of local schemes. In addition, there was a need to ensure that local school meals were cost effective and of high nutritional value to children. The Food Poverty Task Force had been helpful in assessing local priorities and coordinating a plan of action set out in the council report.
· It was noted that all of the schools had their own kitchens which was positive. Funding arrangements for FSM from the Mayor meant that whilst funds could be spent on staffing arrangements to support delivery, it could not be used for any capital works. The extension of the FSM offer had been relatively straightforward, but had required schools to invest in additional resources (plates, cutlery, staffing) to meet the increased demand for meals.
· Improving School Meals Strategy Group was set up and had a number of different work streams to help support schools (e.g. procurement, healthy and sustainable food options). This also linked to the reducing food poverty work which was going on across the council, so local work in this area is more coordinated.
· The task force was supported by £300k of additional funding to help schools adapt and improve FSM provision. Each school now has a link to experienced voluntary sector organisations working in this sphere to support them in their provision of FSM including Chefs in Schools and Hackney School of Food (Gainsborough) School. The latter grows its own food for children at the school and offers training for other schools and teachers.
· A grant system was set up for local schools to bid for money aligned to the priorities and recommendations of the Task Force report. Applications closed on January 6th 2024. It was important that schools lead and take this work forward in their own school. The working group will reflect on how the grants system was working and make adjustments as needed.
5.5 The Commission asked the following supplementary questions (with responses).
5.5.1 Given that there are other family benefits attached to FSM entitlement, what is the authority / schools doing to make sure that parents continue to apply for FSM now that universal free provision is in place? Is auto-enrolment being considered?
· This issue was being discussed London wide as this impacted all local authorities. The critical issue here was data sharing so that eligible families continued to apply and ensure that schools received Pupil Premium (PP) funding which was attached to FSM entitlement. Hackney Education was working with the local Money Hub to support this. It is important to get the message to parents that they should still apply given the significant levels of school funding attached. The authority was investigating automatic sign-up to ensure that FSM entitlements (and attached PP funding) was maintained.
5.5.2 The Commission notes that as independent schools do not qualify for FSM provision, in Hackney the Household Support Fund (HSF) has been used to support Charedi community organisations to deliver school meals (£852k year to March 2024). Under current government plans the Household Support Fund will cease from March 2024, are there plans for supporting the pupils from the Charedi community beyond this date?
· The authority was speaking to the central government and London Mayor about how the authority can continue to support independent schools within the Charedi community and Charedi community more broadly. The Council through its broader poverty reduction work was committed to ensure that all children and families in need were supported (e.g. families with no recourse to public funds are provided with free school meals). Hackney has a tradition of continuing to fund programmes even after central government has ceased funding and it would of course look into the impact of the discontinuation of the HSF and how work might be continued (where possible). This all sat within the council's overall reducing poverty framework and was not an issue for Hackney Education and local schools alone.
· (PS) The Poverty Reduction Board is working closely with the Schools Food Group, and it was hoped a more bespoke solution could be developed in near future to respond to these areas of unmet need.
5.5.3 To what extent are those children in secondary school whose families who do not have recourse to public funds are entitled to free school meals?
· (Mayor Bramble) Children in secondary school settings need free school meals as much as those children in primary settings. The Task Force was commissioned and set up to look at issues such as this. At this stage it was helping secondary schools work together and to share good practice which was evidently present in local schools. Urswick Secondary school does offer FSM to all its pupils and there is much that can be learnt from this approach. The challenge of providing FSM to secondary school pupils was more nuanced, as children of this age may mask over food poverty.
5.5.4 Southwark Council, which has had universal free school meal provision in place for primary school pupils for a number of years, has been allowed to use Mayoral funding to develop more targeted FSM support to pupils in secondary school settings. Whilst work to extend FSM has focused within primary settings, has there been any similar work to develop FSM in secondary settings in Hackney? What does food poverty look like in secondary school settings?
· The FSM and Food Poverty report set out a number of recommendations in this area and the local task force continued to look at this issue.
Questions on the School Estates Update
5.6 Can the Cabinet member update the Commission on the School Estates Strategy and proposals (agreement) to close / merge 6 primary schools in Hackney in response to falling school rolls? In particular, members would welcome further information on the following:
1. Data on the number of reception school places and vacancies in Hackney from September 2023 entry;
2. Transitional support available for children and families at schools confirmed for closure and / or merger (especially those children with an EHCP or on SEND support);
3. Details of any transitional support available for staff at schools proposed for closure / or merger;
4. Ongoing engagement and involvement of local primary schools that continue to be impacted by falling school rolls and local strategies to address this;
5. Engagement with local secondary schools to assist future planning to prepare them for falling school rolls;
6. Strategic planning for deciding how school sites which may become vacant will continue to be used for educational or community purposes?
7. Upcoming timetable for key decisions to support the future implementation of the School Estates Strategy.
5.7 The following is a summary of Deputy Mayor Bramble’s response to the questions above:
· Schools were at the heart of the local community and often attended by multiple generations of families. No officers or elected officials go into office to close schools, but have a duty to maintain quality of education for all children locally. Although there were some very high performing schools locally, the education system as a whole was experiencing a challenge through falling school rolls. Local schools were high performing by design, supported by highly motivated and committed teachers and staff.
· The GLA level of surplus places within local educational systems was recommended to be within 5-10%. In Hackney, surplus places were currently at 21% and projected to rise further without rationalisation of the school estate. This is having a significant impact on school finances as school income is predominantly through per pupil payments. As a consequence, the total value of school reserves was being depleted, with reserves projected to fall to £2.1m in 2023/24 from £9.9m in 2020/21.
· Falling school rolls was therefore undermining the future sustainability of the educational system and the decision was taken to close two primary schools and to merge a further 4 schools on two sites.
· In terms of transition for children and families, schools were leading in making sure children and families were prepared for respective closures and mergers. Schools will be able to draw in the expertise of other professionals to help support them in this process. Children on an EHCP will have the guidance of a key worker to help and support the school and parents decide where the best school option for their child will be after closure / merger. Additional support will also be given for children on SEND support. An additional 300 Hackney SEND places (in special schools, ARP) will be provided through the SES to ensure that parents have more local options in which to educate their children.
· The HR team led a Q & A with all staff at affected school sites to explore what the impact would likely mean for them. Now that the decision to close the schools has been confirmed, a wide range of support will be made available to staff including support for job applications and the development of soft skills (e.g. interviewing techniques).
· A key timeline of events will be developed for all the schools to ensure that there is an appropriate transition for all children, families and staff to follow the closure decision. WHAMS, the mental health and wellbeing service for schools will continue to operate as normal and support children in affected schools.
5.8 The Commission asked the following supplementary questions (with responses).
5.8.1 How were schools continuing to experience falling school rolls to be supported, particularly in the context that local surplus reception places would continue to be well above the advised level (5-10%) even after the current programme of closures and mergers were implemented. Is there a timeframe to reduce the vacancy rate further to within this advised level?
· (Deputy Mayor Bramble) The School Estates Strategy (SES) continues to look at the whole school system in response to falling school rolls. It was important to note that the previous Mayor and Deputy Mayor had written to the DfE highlighting the need for additional funding for school, and the necessity to bring in new powers for local authorities to support a more system wide assessment of education provision, and not just focus on schools maintained by the council. Whilst funding was increased, it was insufficient to make any substantial impact on the long term position. Non-maintained schools also remain out of scope of falling school roll rationalisation plans. The authority would continue to work with the SES to support sustainable schools. There is preparatory work being undertaken with secondary schools to ensure that they are resilient to likely reduction in school numbers ‘coming down the line’, for example, one local secondary school was moving to become coeducational from single-sex school. Given that projections showed continuing falling school rolls to 2029/30, this was a long term project in which officers would continue to work with schools to promote sustainability.
· (PS) The current school closure programme will reduce surplus capacity from 21/22% to 17%, so there is still further to go. A working group had been set up among local primary and secondary heads to help develop long term plans for school places but also assessing what had been learnt from round 1 of closures and to help identify good practice from other local authorities. All maintained and non-maintained schools will be represented in this process. It was also noted that despite these funding pressures, schools were still delivering outstanding results, but this could only be maintained for so long.
5.8.2 Given the experience of this round of school closures, are other local schools aware of the processes that they may need to consider to ensure the future sustainability of their school (such as closure working with neighbouring schools)?
· Every head teacher locally would have had this conversation as falling school rolls are having a London wide impact. Head teachers meet quarterly together to discuss this and other issues of importance. Regular updates on this issue are also provided to all head teachers across the borough. The next step is just to reassure schools going forward of the support available, and to facilitate local cooperation between schools to address underlying issues. The local authority is of course open to all suggestions and dialogue with schools on this important issue. One form entry schools remain a particular focus within this work as these schools are stand alone and maybe have reduced scope to adjust and adapt to changing pupil numbers. Secondary schools on the whole are larger and maybe have greater flexibility to adapt, but it was noted that such schools in Hackney tended to be comparatively smaller in comparison to other boroughs. The Deputy Mayor also assured members and others in attendance that there was no plan to sell-off any of the school sites.
5.9 The Chair thanked Deputy Mayor Bramble for attending and responding to questions from the Commission.
Supporting documents:
PDF 74 KB