To consider any questions which may have been received from Elected Members and which are asked pursuant to Standing Order No. 11.
Minutes:
The Executive Director Core Services reported that he had received the following questions from Councillor Carr in accordance with Standing Order No. 11.
(a) ‘What is the quality and cost of operating our Alternative Education provision within the primary and Secondary Sectors? How many pupils have access to this provision; what is the staffing ratio and how do we ensure that pupils receive a quality education?’
Councillor Cheetham, Cabinet Spokesperson for People (Achieving Potential) responded by stating that the Council currently commissioned 99 places from Springwell Alternative Academy, which was operated by the Wellspring Academy Trust, and which covered both the primary and secondary sectors. These places were jointly funded by The Education and Skills Funding Agency which paid Wellspring £10,000 per place and the Council which contributed a top-up of up to an additional £10,000 per place from the High Needs Block of schools funding. This was a pot of funding that came from schools and was agreed via the Schools Forum. The cost of the High Needs budget for these places totalled £741,000. In addition, the Local Authority Commissioned 21 places for secondary pupils which it currently fully funded from the High Needs Block of school funding. The cost of these additional places was £369,000.
Provision was dispersed across the borough with primary pupils supported on the Springwell Learning Community main site and Key Stage 3 and 4 pupils supported in specialist units in Secondary Schools.
In terms of staff to pupil ratios, there were 3 members of staff (1 teacher and 2 teaching assistants) to a maximum of 10 pupils. In addition, Springwell employed subject specialist teachers who visited the dispersed provision on a peripatetic basis to ensure appropriate curriculum delivery. In addition, he had spoken to a colleague from another authority who had visited Springwell, as indeed had other local authorities, and it was seen as an example of good practice.
Assurances could also be taken from the Ofsted inspection of Springwell Alternative Academy as it had been judged as being good overall in December, 2017 with pupil development, behaviour and welfare being rated as outstanding. In addition, the Authority commissioners held regular meetings with Wellspring so that issues concerning alternative provision could be discussed and monitored.
Councillor Carr had no supplementary question and thanked Councillor Cheetham for his response.
(b) ‘Do Schools within the Borough use Isolation Units and if so, how are they operated and organised? What are the maximum numbers within each unit and are there any limits on the time that pupils can be accommodated within such units? What are the staffing ratios and how do we ensure that such units provide pupils with a quality education?’
Councillor Cheetham, Cabinet Spokesperson for People (Achieving Potential) responded by stating that the Council did not hold this information. Specific disciplinary/behaviour management arrangements, including the use of Isolation Units, was a matter for individual schools, governing bodies and Academy Trusts. Whilst Council Officers may discuss behaviour policies with schools and academies in the context of broader school improvement issues, it was not within the Authority’s remit or capacity to monitor individual schools’ day to day practice.
Councillor Carr thanked Councillor Cheetham for his response and, as a supplementary question, referred to a BBC Breakfast Programme which showed isolation unit cubicles used in other authority areas and she sought an assurance that no such cubicles were in use within Barnsley.
Councillor Cheetham referred to his answer to the original question although he added that BBC Breakfast was probably not the primary source of information about what was occurring within Barnsley schools.
The Executive Director Core Services reported that he had received the following questions from Councillor Kitching in accordance with Standing Order No. 11.
(a) ‘I understand that Barnsley FC are offering free sanitary products at Oakwell Stadium which is a fantastic initiative. The issue of period poverty and children missing days of school due to not having adequate sanitary protection is known to be a growing issue across the UK
Are free sanitary products available in schools across the Barnsley area?’
Councillor Cheetham, Cabinet Spokesperson for People (Achieving Potential) responded by stating that this was an issue that had been raised previously with schools who had responded that they provided free sanitary products when needed. He also added his own congratulations to the Football Club for the scheme they had introduced and he commented that they were one of a number of organisations operating similar schemes. It had been noted by our schools that this was becoming an increasing cost to them with already stretched school budgets and it was an issue that the Authority would be revisiting. He was also pleased to report that via the North East Area Council a pilot project was being undertaken called Lunchtime Period which was being run at both the Outwood Academy Shafton and Outwood Academy Carlton. The project was aimed at girls who were struggling to pay for sanitary products on a monthly basis, dealt with issues surrounding that and would have a significant impact on health and wellbeing. It was hoped that the scheme would provide not just free sanitary wear plans but also include young women specific assemblies and awareness raising sessions for all highlighting the issues relating to periods and helping to reduce the stigma and embarrassment in discussing the issue. The project would include regular lunchtime sessions and would be supported by staff who could explain and give support and guidance on a number of issues that affected young women. Consultation with young women and schools was being undertaken on how the final delivery of the project should be undertaken and on taking the project forward. Work was also being undertaken in partnership with the national Red Box Project which offered free sanitary wear through the Red Box donations and it was hoped that this could supplement the free feminine products offered through the scheme. The project also had, in principle, matched funding from the North East Area Council and the Youth Development Fund (subject to the costs being fully identified) and grant funding had also been applied for on a regional basis. A decision on this was due next month. It was hoped that this additional funding would enable the project to be expanded further. This was a multi-agency project and though a number of offers of support had already been received if any further funding streams were available, other offers of support would be welcomed.
Councillor Kitching thanked Councillor Cheetham for his response. She felt that some very good work appeared to be taking place in the North East Area Council area and, therefore, asked as a supplementary question asked if Councillor Cheetham he would be willing to liaise with her, and any other member who might be interested, to see how this work could be advertised and disseminated more widely across the borough.
Councillor Cheetham stated that he would be more than willing to share information about the project with all other areas.
(b) ‘Residents in my ward are concerned that there is absolutely no funding available for small traffic schemes (TRO’s), even when problems sexist that clearly need funding – for example at the junction of The Green and Mortimer Road in Penistone. Highways have no budget, Area Councils have no budget. Does the Cabinet Member feel that despite the concerns regarding the lack of funding, public safety can be properly addressed?’
Councillor Miller, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place responded by stating that an All Member Seminar on this topic had been held on the 13th September, 2018 at which Councillor Kitching was in attendance, unfortunately she left before any questions could be asked. He understood that Councillor Wilson asked the same question. The response to this question was quite detailed and technical and, therefore, a response would be provided in writing.
Councillor Kitching attempted to ask a further question which the Mayor ruled was not a supplementary question.
(c) ‘Is there any scope for improving efficiency in the processing of Traffic Regulation Orders? For example, could the number of Traffic Regulation orders across the Borough be processed together, rather than implementing them on an individual basis, taking advantage of economies of scale in respect of joint advertising, legal and staff costs?’
Councillor Miller, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place, responded by stating that a written response would be provided.
Councillor Kitching had no supplementary question.
(d) ‘It has recently come to light that of all the parks in Barnsley, Penny Pie Park in Dodworth has been allocated the most public money and investment over the last five years, totalling £174,000. Having invested this money in such a valued public green space, how does it make financial sense to destroy the park and lose the benefits of this investment?’
Councillor Miller, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place responded by stating that this was quite a technical piece of work. An All Member Seminar had been held on the 20th August, 2018 on this issue but unfortunately Councillor Kitching had failed to attend. A response would be provided in writing.
Councillor Kitching asked as a supplementary question if Councillor Miller could confirm if he had unanimous backing for this scheme which would destroy people’s lives in this area with, so far, minimal justifiable benefits.
Councillor Miller responded by stating that he would provide a written response to this supplementary question.
(e) ‘Does the Cabinet Member believe that communities should have a say in the way their areas are developed?’
Councillor Miller, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place, responded by stating that a written response would be provided as he had only received the questions on Tuesday afternoon and further consultation was required on all the questions submitted. A detailed response would, however, be provided.
Councillor Kitching, in response, expressed frustration that a response was not available given that she had submitted her questions wll in advance of the deadline specified in Standing Orders. She then asked as a supplementary question whether or not it was time for him to listen to both the Planning Department and his constituency residents and go back to the ‘drawing board’ on this entire scheme.
Councillor Miller stated that he acted on behalf of the Council and the Head of the Service in doing what he did on behalf of the full Council. He stressed that he worked for the best interests of the Borough at all times and for the people who came here to work and to live. He reiterated that a reply would be provided in writing.