To comment on the Cabinet report.

The Panel received a presentation on the Cabinet report that reviewed the standards and quality of education in the borough for the academic year 2015/16.

The Panel were informed that the report focused on the progress against the outcomes set by cabinet in March 2016, overall performance of all pupils in the academic year 2015-16, OfSTED judgements of schools in the borough, the attainment of disadvantaged pupils, the volatility in the number of permanent exclusions and the quality of information about 16 and 17 year old destinations.

The Panel were also informed that with regards to the March 2016 outcomes there were the following results:

·         Every school has a published Pupil Premium Plan – Met (October 2016)

·         78% of schools inspected in the year (7 of 9) rated Good or Outstanding – Unmet (85%)

·         19% of students go on to study at a ‘top third Higher Education Institute’ – Unmet (26%)

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. KS4 attainment gap had improved. Unfortunately the gap had increased at KS2.  It was noted that there had been a drop across the board as different benchmarks were being used.

The Panel 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 44th to 24th in the country.

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. Since last years report 8 schools had improved their judgements, 3 had stayed the same and 1 had declined.  86% of schools were ranked as Good or Outstanding at end of February 2017.

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 and all ten authorities with less then 400 pupils in this cohort performed poorly for this group.   Appendices B and C detailed plans to improve outcomes.

Paragraph 2.21 demonstrated the increase in permanent exclusions in the borough with 9 per 10,000 pupils with the national average being 7. The council was working to ensure all pupils had the right opportunities and access to education and had a statutory duty to educate excluded pupils after 6 days from exclusion.  As it was not expected to see the level of exclusion fall it was planned to undertake a review of the Fair Access process that included introducing an independent chairman.

With regards to 16 and 17 year old destinations the Panel were informed that 2% were NEET, 50% EET whilst 48% destination was not known which was higher then the national figure of 16%.

Cllr Jones mentioned that with schools spending 80% of their budget on staff and with reduced funding there was little room to make savings that did not result in reduced staffing levels and thus limited additional support for the disadvantaged.  Cllr Jones asked how the LEA could help.  The Panel were informed that for the current financial year there had been an increase in the DSG.  Officers would be looking at best practice and having targeted support to get a tangible impact for disadvantaged pupils.  The borough was also looking at affordable housing for key workers.

Cllr E Wilson mentioned that the fair funding formula would have a negative impact on smaller schools.  With regards to pupil premium funding levels have remained constant but the data showed we were performing poorly for this cohort.  He recommended that the LEA should consider communicating to parents which schools had strengths and weaknesses so they could be pinpointed to the best school for their child’s needs.  The data on schools should be more accessible.

Cllr E Wilson asked if it was known what was preventing schools making a difference on disadvantaged pupils outcomes.  The Panel were informed that we needed to learn more about the cohort and their differences it was also important that governors be trained to now how to ask difficult questions to schools.

The Chairman asked if schools showed what pupil premium was spent on and was informed that they did along with showing what the cohort was and what they were doing to improve outcomes.

Cllr Jones mentioned it would be interesting to see progress being made rather then just the outcomes.  The Panel were informed that progress was a good measure and compared to other authorities we were not having an impact at an early stage. 

Cllr E Wilson questioned why the such a difference between Churchmead and other secondary Windsor schools.  The Panel were informed that Churchmead informed that they struggle to attract pupils even though they have made good progress over the last five years. 

Cllr E Wilson mentioned that he felt that every Member should be sent a copy of the graph showing the attainment gap.

Cllr Jones mentioned that it was important to try and target support for children before they entered education, she mentioned that we used to have children centres to provide help.  The Panel were informed that the children centre offer may have changed but they still offered targeted support.

Cllr E Wilson mentioned that schools used to collect destination data however when this was transferred to the LEA there had become a data gap.  The Panel were informed that when this data gap became apparent resource were put back in place.

Resolved unanimously:  that the Children’s Services O&S Panel considered the Cabinet report and fully endorsed the recommendations. The Panel felt it was important that all councillors understood the importance of their role as corporate parents and recommended that compulsory training for Members be introduced. They also recommended that Chart 2 – RBWM National rankings by school phase should be circulated to all councillors as it highlighted that disadvantaged pupils on average were achieving less well up to the age of 11 and that there should be increased focus on rectifying this.