Agenda item

Mrs Game (Chairman of the Select Committee),  Mrs Dean and Dr Sullivan were present for this item. 

1.    The Leader reminded Members that the Select Committee report would go to the County Council meeting on 12 July.

2.    Mrs Game stated that all young people should have the life choices that they deserve.  She explained that generally the gaps in educational achievement for pupils receiving the Pupil Premium remained too wide.  The Select Committee was set up to look at the Pupil Premium and to inform policies aimed at narrowing the gap.   The Terms of Reference and the Scope were laid out in the document; the Select Committee carried out extensive research and the Select Committee visited a variety of schools before producing 10 recommendations which were contained within the report.  The Select Committee report was a live document and Members wished to see robust activities coming out of it.

3.    Mrs Game paid tribute to the Committee for their hard work and dedication.

4.    Mrs Dean explained that KCC’s results were not as good as some of its statistical neighbours and it could do better, the work of the Select Committee had shown that the majority of Grammar Schools in Kent had fewer than 10 pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in them.  It was also clear that a number of schools were not taking on board the advice about which interventions were effective.  Mrs Dean suggested that Members look at the website of the Sacred Heart secondary school in Camberwell, which was the 2017 Pupil Premium school of the year and was in the top 2% of schools in the country in terms of adding value to pupil’s education.  The school had a relentless focus on standards and reporting of activity.  The school also had a strong focus on parent participation in their children’s education resulting in a 90% attendance at parent meetings.  Parental engagement was a common theme in the findings of the Pupil Premium Committee. 

5.    Dr Sullivan said that the Early Years stage was vitally important, it could be possible to front load Pupil Premium money for initiatives such as speech and language before pupils enter school.  Some children were 18months behind their peers by the time they entered primary school. 

6.    In response to a question from the Leader, Mr Dunkley explained that there was a substantial difference in the school pupil premium vs the early years pupil premium.  It was really important to close the gap in the early years phase.  Mr Dunkley explained that Kent had been more successful in closing the gap at foundation and KS1 than at KS4 and the higher levels, there had been and would continue to be Head Teacher meetings about this issue. 

7.    The Leader confirmed that, from the report, generally schools were applying the pupil premium sensibly and were there plans to ensure that good practice was shared; for example, that seen at Sacred Heart secondary school.  Mr Dunkley explained that in relation to the new Ofsted framework there was a sensible application of the progress 8 measures at non-selective high schools and Ofsted had had conversations with schools to understand the individual context.  There was a correlation between secondary schools which were judged outstanding in the previous Ofsted framework and there were large gaps in performance in these schools which may not have been inspected since 2006, but these would be inspected in the next round and there was a supporting framework for these schools.

8.    Mr Dunkley explained that pilots were underway to look at how resources could be used better to work with schools and early help services.  It would be possible to replicate this with early help settings depending on the resources available. 

9.    Mr Gough agreed with the importance of early years intervention but considered that in fact KCC did do fairly well in this area, he was keen to work in the spirit of the recommendations of the report. 

10. The Leader confirmed that this would also be discussed by the County Council on 12 July. 

RESOLVED:

i)     that the Select Committee be thanked for its work and for producing the 10 well focussed recommendations

ii)    that the consideration of the report by County Council be supported.