Agenda item

The Head of Education and Skills and the Schools and Settings Effectiveness Lead (Babcock) had been invited to the meeting to provide an update on educational outcomes for children and young people educated in Worcestershire schools for 2015.

By way of introduction, Members were reminded that a member seminar on 2015 educational achievement would be held in April.  Although it may seem quite late to be holding the seminar, given that the 2016 exam season was due to start soon, validated data was not available until mid-January, so it was difficult to provide any useful information any earlier in the year.

During the discussion, the following main points were made:

·       The movement of all schools to academy status would not affect the reporting of data.  Currently 24 out of 28 high schools in Worcestershire were academies and data was still collected from all.

·       From the summer of 2016 all reporting mechanisms would be changing, so there would be an issue with matching data over time.

·       Even if a school became an academy, its pupils would still have to take statutory tests and so the national data point would remain.

·       It was confirmed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement that all schools would become academies would also apply to special schools.

·       The issue of school readiness was raised.  It was confirmed that in reception, PSHE was measured via the criteria outlined in the early learning goals.

·       It was suggested that the education system was on the cusp of substantial change in relation to school organisation and academy status.  In Worcestershire, it was important to remember:

o   88% of schools were judged by Ofsted to be good or outstanding

o   At KS4 results were 7% above the national average

o   The county's Achilles heel was the attainment gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils.

·       It was also important to remember that the local authority had never had control of schools in Worcestershire.  Although the LA did not have a mandate to go in to all academies, where an academy was in difficulty, the authority would offer support.  It was acknowledged that the LA could not control what was taught in an academy.  However, Members were reminded that all schools were mindful of the Ofsted framework.  It was suggested that, generally, things had not changed since the introduction of academies.  For example, the length of the school day, term times, and staff terms and conditions had generally remained the same.

·       Concern was expressed about the limit on the number of people with a link to the local authority who could serve on an academy's governing body.  It was suggested that this was a particular problem for small schools and was leading to a loss of experienced governors.

·       The Head of Education and Skills informed Members that he was meeting representatives of the DfE next week and would raise areas of concern.  He agreed that issues of governance were key.

·       It was suggested that the majority of primary schools would become part of multi-academy trusts.  Indeed, the DfE had recently suggested that it would not accept any more single academy applications and would expect all new applicants to be part of multi-academy trusts.

·       Concern was expressed about results for 16 to 18 year olds in the county.  It was confirmed that the results reported related to academic A levels.  Separate data on vocational qualifications was available.  Results at grades A and A* were causing particular concern, although figures for points per pupil were above the national average.  It was suggested that, when inspecting secondary schools, Ofsted would focus on GCSE results rather than post-16.

·       Further concern was expressed about Key Stage 2 results, A level results and the attainment of pupils eligible for pupil premium.  Given the county's demographic profile, results would be expected to be higher.

·       The 2 tier/3 tier issue was discussed.  At KS2 in the 2 tier system results were in line with the national average.  In the 3 tier system, results were below the national average, matching results in 3 tier systems elsewhere in the country.  However, this could not simply be seen as 2 tier schools doing better than 3 tier, as in some areas of the county 3 tier schools did as well as their 2 tier counterparts.

·       It was confirmed that being below floor targets at KS2 did not necessarily mean that a school would be seen as failing by Ofsted.

·       It was accepted that attainment at KS2 was an issue for the Council, but it was suggested that this would be more of an issue if attainment was also below the national average at KS4.

·       It was suggested that, although attainment at KS4 had improved, attainment gaps had not narrowed, as attainment had gone up across the board.  As results had improved, young people had developed higher aspirations.

·       It would be important to ensure that schools were aware of the data and aware of effective practice.

·       Members were reminded that figures for 16-18 NEETS were now significantly below the West Midlands average.

·       With reference to the Summary Overview on page 132 of the agenda, it would be helpful to have the figures for disadvantaged children and LAC on the same page for ease of comparison.

·       If KS2 results were below average but KS4 results were above average, this would suggest that high schools were doing well.  It was suggested that, although pupils in the 3 tier system had an additional transition, they had made expected progress by the end of year 7.

·       It was confirmed that the Council would lose responsibility for school improvement by 2022 when all schools would become academies.  It was suggested that, having commissioned out learning and achievement services to Babcock, the authority was in a good position to facilitate the change of commissioning responsibility from the local authority to schools.

It was agreed that, given ongoing uncertainty in relation to the local authority's role in schools, it would be important to keep the Overview and Scrutiny Panel informed as the situation developed.  An item on the future role of the local authority (in relation to place planning, education for LAC and responsibility for school improvement) would be added to the 2016/17 scrutiny work programme.