To consider school performance for summer 2013 and the school improvement partnership strategy and framework approved by the Cabinet Member for Young People and Children’s Wellbeing to improve performance for Herefordshire’s children and young people.

The Chairman commented that, despite recent legislative changes regarding free schools and academies, local authorities were still expected to monitor school performance and drew attention to the report ‘Back to school: Ways for scrutiny to influence local education and support school leaders to improve results’ published by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and the Local Government Association.

 

The Assistant Director Education and Commissioning, Children’s Wellbeing introduced the report, the key points included:

 

i.        The role of the local authority had changed but the Council still had an overall responsibility around education, including the quality and sufficiency of education and as an advocate for children and young people.  The role of, and demands on, school governors had also changed.

 

ii.       It was noted that the ‘Back to school report’ suggested topics for scrutiny of performance and it was commented that school performance could form part of the annual work programme of the Committee.

 

iii.      A number of headline figures were good, with some outstanding performance by individual schools and by individual pupils.  However, other figures were not where the authority or schools would wish them to be, particularly in relation to overall attainment at different key stages which were at or below national averages, and the progress of vulnerable groups compared to their peers where Herefordshire was in the bottom quartile in the country.

 

iv.      Attention was drawn to Appendix 1 to the report, ‘Herefordshire School Improvement Partnership Strategy and Framework to Improve Outcomes for Learners in Herefordshire 2013/14’.  It was reported that the Herefordshire School Improvement Partnership (HSIP) had been established in autumn 2013 and included representatives from Herefordshire Council, the Diocese of Hereford, the Archdiocese of Cardiff, and school leaders, governors and staff.  The strategy and framework set out a risk based approach, with schools assessed on a number of factors.  This facilitated dialogue with and between schools about actions to improve pupil performance.

 

v.       Attention was also drawn to the ‘Closing the Gap’ project which was an initiative to address the significant variations between groups of pupils, including pupils eligible for free school meals and pupils with English as an additional language.

 

vi.      It was reported that the resources available for school improvement had reduced over a number of years, with the service cut by 60%, partly due to the overall budget position but also because of the changing role of the local authority.  The HSIP provided an opportunity to generate a mutual approach to school improvement.

 

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Assistant Director advised that there were national descriptors of vulnerable groups, enabling comparisons to be made.  The authority had broadened the scope locally to look at any pupil that was at risk of not making the level of progress expected.

 

The Interim Head of Service gave the presentation ‘Summary Education Performance Herefordshire’ (as provided in Supplement 1 to the agenda) which provided an overview of performance against key measures.  The principal points of the presentation included:

 

Key Stage (KS) 5 (18 year olds)

 

1.       Average Points Scores by students achieving all Level 3 qualifications: Herefordshire establishments had performed well, consistently in the top quartile of local authorities in England.

 

2.       Percentage of children entering and achieving equivalent to at least 2 A level passes (A*-E): this measure was below the England average.

 

End of KS4 (end of secondary school, 16 year olds)

 

3.       Percentage of children achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE: performance was in the top quartile and above the England average.

 

4.       Percentage of children achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE including English and maths: performance had been in the third quartile in 2011-12, comparative data for 2012-13 was expected at the end of January 2014.

 

5.       Percentage of children making expected progress in English between KS2 and KS4: performance had been in the top quartile in 2010-11 but this had dropped to the fourth quartile in 2011-12.  It was noted that there had been significant issues with the English papers which contributed to shifts in performance nationally, with Herefordshire particularly affected.

 

6.       Percentage of children making expected progress in maths between KS2 and KS4: performance had been consistently in the second quartile.

 

7.       Free school meals gap children achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE including English and maths: performance in 2012 was in the fourth quartile, significantly below the England average.

 

8.       Percentage of children whose first language is other than English achieving 5+ A*-C including English and maths: performance in 2012 was at the bottom of the fourth quartile, again significantly below the England average.

 

9.       It was reported that the gap calculations involving vulnerable groups were complicated by the relatively small numbers of pupils involved, both within individual schools and in overall terms in Herefordshire compared to other authorities.

 

End of KS2 (end of primary school, 11 year olds)

 

10.     Percentage of KS2 achieving level 4 or above reading: performance in 2013 was in the third quartile, slightly below the England average.

 

11.     Percentage of KS2 achieving level 4 or above writing: performance in 2013 was in the fourth quartile, below the England average.

 

12.     EAL (English as an additional language) gap 2012 and 2013 for percentage pupils achieving level 4+ reading, writing and maths: it was commented that performance was one of the worst in the country, although initial data for 2013/14 showed some improvement.

 

13.     FSM (free school meals) gap 2012 and 2013 for percentage pupils achieving level 4+ reading, writing and maths: the gap was in the third quartile in 2012 and in the fourth quartile in 2013.

 

End of KS1 (7 year olds)

 

14.     Percentage of KS1 achieving level 2 in reading: performance had varied in previous years but was near to the England average in 2013.

 

15.     Percentage of KS1 achieving level 2 or above in writing: performance had recovered from the fourth quartile in 2012 to the third quartile in 2013 but it was still below the England average.

 

16.     Percentage of KS1 achieving level 2 or above in maths: there was similar trend to the position with writing.

 

17.     Percentage of KS1 achieving level 2b or above (2b was the level thought to be needed to achieve level 4 at KS2) in reading, writing and maths: performance was in the fourth quartile, significantly below the England average.

 

End of Foundation Stage (5 year olds)

 

18.     Percentage of 5 year olds achieving the expected level of development: performance had been in the third quartile in 2011 and 2012 but the position had improved in 2013, to above the England average; it was noted that definitions had changed in 2013, resulting in a narrowing of the gap between local authorities.

 

19.     Percentage achieving a good level of development in 30% most deprived areas of the local authority: performance was in the third quartile, lower than other areas.

 

OfSTED Comparisons

 

20.     Percentage of good or better primary schools: Herefordshire was in the middle of the local authorities in the West Midlands but below the England average.

 

21.     Percentage of good or better secondary schools: Herefordshire was at the top of the local authorities in the West Midlands, significantly above the England average.

 

22.     Where is Herefordshire?: despite positive inspection outcomes, KS2 and KS4 attainment was still at the lower end of the local authorities in the West Midlands and below the England average.

 

The Assistant Director reported that the authority had been working with OfSTED and had held a conference for all school leaders in 2013 to look at the issues collectively.  It was also reported that OfSTED had a new inspection framework for local authorities in relation to the discharging of roles around educational improvement.  Therefore, although schools were responsible for improvement, the local authority had a role in challenging and supporting schools.

 

The Vice-Chairman noted that there had been significant variations year on year, perhaps partly due to changes in assessments having disproportionate effects.  The Vice-Chairman also noted that only a snapshot had been provided, without data showing a particular cohort at different points in their development, and asked officers to identify key issues of concern.  The Interim Head of Service said that a major issue was that performance at Foundation Stage was key, as the gap was often maintained at the same level through later stages.  The Interim Lead for Improvement added that all the evidence nationally showed that the earlier the intervention, the more effective it was at reducing the gaps. 

 

In response to a question from the Vice-Chairman about addressing issues before children reached schools, the Cabinet Member Young People and Children’s Wellbeing reported that: the authority was part of an initiative to extend early education places for disadvantaged two year olds; and, with impetus from budget reductions and OfSTED feedback, resources in Children’s Social Care were being reprioritised to focus on the front end.  Further to the point made at 9 above, the Cabinet Member noted school leaders, teachers and governors needed to be aware that concentrated effort to support vulnerable pupils could help to make radical changes in performance.

 

In response to questions and comments from Committee Members, officers made a number of points including:

 

·                It was acknowledged that the remit of Sure Start had widened over time and a broader range of families had taken up services than initially intended.

 

·                Budget reductions provided an opportunity to reaffirm the focus of the service on the outcomes being achieved, particularly for vulnerable groups.   It was noted that taking information to early years groups and schools was helping to raise awareness about performance issues.

 

·                There was a formal co-ordination network between health and local authority services but it was recognised that there was further work to be done.  The Cabinet Member added that Public Health and Children’s Social Care were working together to explore responsibilities in terms of health visitors and school nurses.  It was noted that this would be an area of interest to the Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

A Member in attendance commented on a number of issues, including: the development of children and young people was not just an issue for schools but also for the wider community; the lives of many pupils outside schools, particularly in deprived areas, were difficult and parents often did not have the facilities to be as supportive as they might wish to be; in view of these circumstances, there needed to be realistic expectations of teachers; the benefits achieved by the South Wye Education Action Zone and the South Wye Regeneration Partnership were outlined, including the provision of adult education classes; and it was considered that health and local authority services were not doing as much as they could within deprived communities.

 

A co-opted member spoke on a number of issues, including: the meaning of school improvement was a key question, it should not just be about examination performance but should also include measurable indicators reflecting factors that influence learning; the strategy document was described as an ‘expected report’, a more innovative approach would be to involve psychologists to gain a better understanding of emotional intelligence and child development; it was questioned how the authority was measuring wellbeing; rather than a risk assessment, a needs based approach was needed; the HSIP should help schools to question the reasons behind the gaps; teachers should be expected to do more, supported by training which enabled teachers to engage with pupils on broader issues; vulnerable children had to be given the same chances as their peers and the authority and schools needed to find ways of applying limited resources more effectively; and a more holistic view was needed about the whole child, not just around performance.

 

The Assistant Director explained that: the information presented was only part of the picture, the Closing the Gap initiative looked at individual pupils in a more holistic way, including the factors that were present in their lives and what could be done to support the narrowing of the gap; OfSTED had challenged the authority and schools about why children from similar backgrounds were making better progress and reaching higher levels of attainment in other parts of the country; and there were variances locally, Marlbrook Primary School had almost no gap between pupils eligible for free school meals and those that were not.  It was acknowledged that there were things to learn and share about different approaches from both outside and inside the county.  The Interim Lead for Improvement said that conversations with schools were not just about exam results but also the experience that they provided and a wider range of outcomes.  It was noted that part of the aims of the HSIP was to share good practice.

 

The co-opted member suggested that the wider factors should be identified in the strategy document, particularly to encourage a more standardised approach to avoid variable responses by schools.  In response to a question, the Interim Head of Service confirmed that Closing the Gap was about those pupils not reaching an expected level at a particular point in time, not just about the vulnerable groups identified in the data presented.  He added that, whatever the background of children, schools should not be complacent about potential levels of attainment and should consider accelerated learning to enable pupils to catch up with their peers.

 

Another co-opted member considered that there needed to be focus on education in order to improve the performance issues identified in the presentation, particularly on the quality of teaching in Reception and Year One.  He also considered that schools needed to direct funding from the pupil premium and other sources to support the small numbers of vulnerable pupils more effectively.  The Chairman commented that early years set the foundations upon which schools could build upon.

 

A Member in attendance felt that there was potential contradiction between the collaborative approach being promoted through the HSIP and the degree to which schools were in competition with each other, particularly given that there was some overprovision in the county.  The Interim Lead for Improvement advised that the HSIP was being driven by a group of head teachers that had a broad perspective of education in the county and had a desire to work with the local authority and other schools.  The Member also questioned how much the authority knew about various structures and groups being developed by schools and the effectiveness of each approach.  The Interim Lead for Improvement acknowledged that there were a number of models developing and part of the work of the HSIP would be to identify effective partnership working. 

 

The Assistant Director noted that: competiveness was now part of the educational landscape, to a greater or lesser degree depending on certain issues and locations; there were examples of leadership programmes and collaborative working both nationally and locally, for example Wigmore School was part of a Teaching School Alliance; to be rated as ‘outstanding’ by OfSTED, schools needed to demonstrate that they were working with and supporting the improvement of other schools; the HSIP was considered the best way to make sense of some of the dichotomies and to make use of the talents within Herefordshire educational establishments; and the HSIP was at an early stage.

 

In response to questions from the Vice-Chairman:

 

§    The Interim Head of Service advised that Herefordshire was in the bottom quartile in terms of the proportion of 16-18 year olds who were not in education, training or employment.  The authority was working on a strategy in this area.  The need for many young people to obtain employment at 18 was recognised.  The authority was now tracking young people post-16 and this improved understanding would inform the deployment of resources and would help education and training providers to focus on needs.

 

§    The Interim Lead for Improvement commented that schools viewed the changing role of the local authority in different ways; some still expected the authority to provide lots of support and were surprised about the limited resources now available, whereas others emphasised their independence and autonomy.  In general terms, schools were more critical of Council input and the authority had to demonstrate how it could add value.

 

§    The Assistant Director noted that local authority appointed governors could provide a wider perspective than those immediately involved in a school but recognised that the service had not been as active with such governors as it could have been in recent years.  He acknowledged the point made by the Vice-Chairman that the flow of information could be improved both ways.

 

The Assistant Director made a number of points, including: with the risk based approach, involvement would be ‘light touch’ for those schools identified as low risk/need; it was heartening that a number of academies were involved in the HSIP; the skills, connections and experiences that joint working could bring; and the need to revisit the approach around schools’ sustainability.

 

In response to a question from the Vice-Chairman, the Assistant Director confirmed that the HSIP did not just engage with schools that were in difficulty, it was interacting with other schools to identify and share best practice.  The Vice-Chairman commented on some of the good work being undertaken by schools, such as the values framework developed by Ledbury Primary School which had positive throughput to John Masefield High School and was being considered as a model to be adopted by the Town Council.

 

In response to a question from the Vice-Chairman about gifted and talented children, the Interim Lead for Improvement advised that part of the dialogue with schools was about identifying and supporting the individual needs of all children to enable them to reach their full potential.  The Vice-Chairman suggested that the Committee would welcome statistics on high-end achievement.

 

A Committee Member questioned how schools were making use of the pupil premium.  The Interim Head of Service advised that the pupil premium did not just cover children eligible for free school meals but also looked after children and the children of parents serving in the armed forces.  He also advised that schools were required to publish key information online and the service had a programme for monitoring this.  It was commented that there were some good examples of how the premium was being accounted for and the HSIP would explore how this could be maximised.

 

A co-opted member made further points, including: the importance of learning opportunities for all parties involved; the local authority should not just be involved when things go wrong; it was recommended that there should be an emphasis within the HSIP on broader learning, not just intervention; more work was needed on the relationship between the local authority and the schools, to emphasise the new approach and to ensure that autonomy did not lead to isolation; some values were need to provide direction and a common frame of reference; there was no reference in the strategy to the student voice and it was recommended that the partnership involve students from different backgrounds, not just those that might naturally engage with student councils; and it was noted that various groups had been established within the HSIP but it was questioned whether a single group would be more effective.

 

In response, the Assistant Director advised that the strategic group comprised representatives of the sub groups and, given the amount of work and business transacted, it would be impractical to have a single group.  He said that officers would take away the points about the student voice and noted that there was an element of this already in that the strategic group convened at different schools and began each meeting with a discussion with parents and students.

 

A Committee Member recommended that a list be prepared of local authority governors and other key educational links, particularly to support improved communications.  It was also recommended that a report be prepared on the purpose and effectiveness of different collaborative groupings and arrangements; this was supported by other Members subject to limit on the amount of resource required to prepare the report.  The Committee Member supported earlier comments about the importance of focussing on needs rather than risks and suggested that specific expertise, in subjects such as music and languages, could help to close gaps between pupils by introducing new experiences to all students.

 

The Vice-Chairman made further recommendations in respect of: the need for a joined up view on where money spent on education was connecting with other Council activities, particularly from the point of view of having a presence in the community and opportunities for connectivity between services, such as library provision; and requested the circulation to Committee Members of the latest figures, with updated histograms, when they became available.

 

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Interim Head of Service confirmed that sixth form colleges were involved in the work on post-16 provision.

 

RESOLVED:  That, with the recommendations identified above, the report be noted.