UPDATE NO 377 08 November 2019

4 recent DfE publications

1. Information on the Condition Improvement Fund for 2020-21 for repairs and maintenance for academies and sixth forms
2. PE and Sports Premium for primary schools. Update on allocations and how it should be spent

3. Early years funding benchmarking tool for LAs
4. Statistics: children in need and child protection. It identifies year on year reductions in the national number of both CiN (down 1%) and CP down (3%).  The report also analyses needs characteristics and assessment activity.

EEF publishes new evaluation report on the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP)

Teachers say changes to early learning goals have made them clearer and reduced their workload, but more research needed to establish whether children better prepared for Key Stage 1

An independent report by EEF finds the Government’s proposed changes to the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) – ahead of a full public consultation – have created a more clear and specific set of goals to support teachers in their assessment of children’s development, and have reduced teachers’ workload, allowing them to spend more time with children.

The revised Early Learning Goals (ELGs) were received positively overall by participants and they made practical suggestions to help improve them. However, there were mixed views about whether children would be better prepared for Key Stage 1 as a result of the changes to the ELGs, and about whether they were more or less challenging than before.

This is according to the independent evaluation of a pilot of the reforms published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) on 24 October.

Nuffield Family Justice Observatory: Use of children’s social care data at the local and regional level

An insight piece by the Nuffield Foundation Family Justice Observatory explores the nature, availability and use of child level administrative data at the local and regional level, by children’s social care departments. 

The report finds that there is value in children’s social care data being analysed locally and regionally, as well as purely being exported by local authorities to meet the statutory reporting requirements. However, as a result of austerity the capacity and capability of performance management teams has been reduced which impacts on the ease and frequency that this can take place. 

By working together, it is possible to build our collective capacity and utilise the wealth of data that already exist. This is already starting to happen on the ground, with pivotal learning being shared between local authorities as part of the Children’s Services National Performance and Data Management Group. Attempts are also being made to share learning between local authority analysts, academics, and national organisations, such as the Department for Education and Ofsted as part of the Children’s Social Care Data User Group. 

Alastair Lee, our regional data lead, is involved in the national level discussions about this research, and better use of data tools.

He has published this blog post on the topic of data tools

Please contact him for more information (details below).

Research into the use of Social Media by Children’s Social Workers

The use of Facebook in social work practice with children and families: exploring complexity in an emerging practice Authors: Tarsem Singh Cooner, Liz Beddoe, Harry Ferguson & Eileen Joy Published 22 October 201

Research exploring how children social workers use Facebook in their practice. The article draws from a 15-month participant observation study of social work and child protection practices in England to illustrate how social workers used Facebook to gain another view of service-users’ lives. Social media use was not an intended focus for the study, its presence emerged during the data analysis. While some research has shown that such practices occur, our long-term ethnographic approach provides new insights into how Facebook was actually used in ongoing casework with families and why it was used.

Triads 3, 5 and 6 all meet next week

A busy week for Triad Peer Challenges involving Bracknell Forest, Brighton and Hove, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Milton Keynes, Reading, Slough, Southampton and West Berkshire.

Triad 4 has been re-arranged for 10 January 2020.

For more information please consult the Peer Challenge website page, or contact isabelle Gregory (details below) 

2019-20 DCS Peer Challenge dates

SEND Single Route of Redress National Trial – Extension to 31 August 2020

The SEND Delivery Support Team have written:

Dear Regional Coordinators (please cascade to your regional networks),

In April 2018, the Department for Education began a National Trial to extend the powers of the SEND Tribunal to hear appeals, and make non-binding decisions about, health and social care aspects of Education, Health and Care plans. The Trial was due to end on 31 March 2020.

The Department is extending the Trial until 31 August 2020 and on 4 November the DfE wrote to Directors of Children’s Services to inform them and provide further details. 

If you have any questions please contact SENDdeliverysupport@mottmac.com, consult www.sendpathfinder.co.uk, or call the SEND delivery support helpline on 0207 651 0308. 

A copy of the letter written to DCSs is available here.

For further information about this notification and what it means, please contact Tracey Maytas (deatils below).

Developing regional quality assurance capacity

The first meeting of Quality Assurance leads was held on 5 November. 16 colleagues attended representing 12 authorities. Apologies were received from another 6 authority reps. The next project meeting has been fixed for 11 February 2020.

Project sponsor Stuart Ashley (Hants and IoW) said , “We were pleased with the turnout and the enthusiasm for this piece of work and it would be very helpful if colleagues can continue this commitment and help shape this piece of work.” 

The project webpage is up and running and full details can be downloaded from there. For further information, please contact Diane Williamson (details below).

Memorandum of Cooperation – Review of effectiveness

We have identified the key elements for the planned review of the Memorandum of Co-operation which is being led by Sarah Hammond (Director of Specialist Children’s Services, Kent) with support from SESLIP Consultant Mark Evans (contact details below). They are:  

1. A survey of current agency rates (updating the benchmarking we did when we launched the MoC).
2. To investigate the appetite for regional performance measures and management is relation to agency staffing
3. Developing a new proposal for governance of the MoC (with reference to the need for temporary exemptions or exits) 
4. Sector research on how MoCs have developed in other regions
5. Considering the need for authorities to recommit to the MoC

We plan to conduct most of the work remotely via email/conference calls etc with the possibility of one face to face meeting towards the end of the project. The work will be completed by the March 2020 DCS meeting.

Please can you nominate a representative from your authority to participate in the review.  The person needs to be a senior officer with responsibility for children’s workforce. This could be a senior manager, PSW or HR Partner.  

To complete the review we will need input from both the service and HR functions within all authorities. The invitation to participate in the review is extended to authorities who are not currently MoC signatories as we would like to use this as an opportunity to re-engage them.  Please forward details of your nominated representative to Mark Evans (contact details below).

Are you “due” an Ofsted visit

I often hear colleagues talking about being “due” an Ofsted visit. I have researched two lists: longest interval since any Ofsted visit (including SEND, JTAI, SIF, ILACS, Monitoring and Focussed visits); and longest interval since SIF. These figures are drawn from published reports, so do not take account of any visits underway, nor visits completed but not yet published. 77 ILACS inspections have been reported, and the gaps between SIF and ILACS were as follows

The range of intervals between SIF and ILACS is 1.7 – 5.6 years (average 3.7 years). 15 of the 16 authorities who waited under three years between SIF and ILACS were either Inadequate (and subject to monitoring visits), or had recently received a SEND visit. 14 of these 16 inspections resulted in an improved judgement.