Members considered a review of the standards and quality of education in the borough for the academic year 2015/16.

The Lead Member explained the report was being presented to Cabinet in March as the data was only verified by the DfE in January 2017. The report demonstrated that overall there was a high level of achievement by pupils, particularly at KS2. However, pupils in recent of pupil premium did not do so well. Since the last report in March 2016, two of the five outcomes had been met. Every school now had a published pupil premium plan and the KS4 attainment gap had improved. Unfortunately the gap had increased at KS2. Less Ofsted inspections had taken place than expected; 83% were Good or Outstanding against a target of 85%. Students going on to a top third university fell from 21% to 19% and only 2% of students from a further education college achieved this target.

Members noted that the borough outperformed the national average at all Key Stages and ranked in the top 20% of 150 authorities. KS2 had moved from 44^th to 24^th in the country. The borough was committed to ensuring all pupils had the best life choices. Analysis was underway to determine why pupils from a black or Pakistani background did not do so well and how they could be supported. There had been limited opportunities for Ofsted judgements as five schools had become Academies, which delayed inspections.  Many were Good or Outstanding and therefore were not due for inspection for some time. The measure would be changed in future to reflect these aspects.

Members noted the content of chart 1, including the gap in attainment at early years that narrowed by the time it got to KS4. The cohort of pupil premium pupils at Early Years stage was small. Appendices B and C detailed plans to improve outcomes. Paragraph 2.21 demonstrated the increase in permanent exclusions in the borough; nationally 7 out of 10 had special educational needs. The council was working to ensure all pupils had the right opportunities and access to education. This included a review of the Fair Access Panel with proposals to introduce an independent chairman and recorded votes for each case.

The Lead Member explained that government statistics had registered 2.3% of the cohort as NEETs, however when data collection fell to schools this increased to 47.4% unrecorded. Work was underway to reduce the number of unknown students.

The Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel had highlighted the role of all Members as Corporate Parents.

The Deputy Lead Member for School Improvement commented that the School Improvement Forum was focussing on disadvantaged children. It was important to understand why certain groups did not do so well. The cohort was small in a relatively wealthy borough; only 1000 pupils were eligible for free schools meals out of a school population of 20,000. This equated to 6% compared to a national average of 26%. However there were other authorities of a similar background that had better results for pupil premium students. An audit had been undertaken and schools with excellent plans were being used as examples of good practice with other schools. Champions who had attended the School Improvement Forum had highlighted the need to identify a child’s individual circumstances. An additional £40,000 had been allocated for the next three years in Early Years, to include a fund to provide specific resources for individual children. The Forum had tasked officers to look into the possibility of a summer school to bring students together for informal learning in the holidays. The Chairman commented that Holyport College would be delighted to assist in this endeavour.

The Lead Member confirmed that the council was working with the Regional Schools Commissioner to improve achievement at Altwood; a meeting was scheduled with the governors. The Windsor Boys’ School was part of a MAT with Windsor Girls’ School, with the aim of helping them to improve. Furze Platt received a Good Ofsted judgement in September 2016.

The Lead Member for Finance highlighted the differences for certain cohorts, acknowledging they were very small in most cases. At KS2 the general student population was 24^th; for those on free school meals the level was 134^th. Those with a first language of English were 13^th; for those not having English as a first language the level was 74^th. Those who were white ranked 19^th; those who were Asian ranked 93^rd. He suggested the network of Headteachers and Chairs of Governors be asked how they were responding to these issues. The issue should be raised at the Schools Forum. He also suggested the same group be questioned about the reasons the attainment gap was so much wider at Early Years and KS2 that at KS4.

The Chairman requested that all Chairs of Governors be written to on the matter and the issue be considered at the next Schools Forum.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet notes the report and:

i)          Approves the statutory school age pupil premium plan as outlined in 2.18 and detailed in appendix B.

ii)         Approves the early years pupil premium plan as outlined in 2.20 and detailed in appendix C.

iii)    Delegates to the Lead Member for Children’s Services and the Director of Children Services, the decision to approve a plan, funded through the High Needs DSG block, to increase the support for increased levels of permanent exclusion.

iv)    Approves the proposal to consult with all schools on a revised Fair Access Protocol and process as set out in 2.28

v)         Request a report on validated attainment and progress data for academic year 2016-17 on 22 March 2018.