Agenda item

(Report by – Mrs M Haeusler, Director of Learning andMrs P Harris Head of Service - Advisory Service Kent)

(1)         The Committee considered a report on the educational reporting cycle for Primary Key Stage 2,   in particular the schools below the floor target.

(2)         Mrs Harris had tabled colour versions of the reporting cycle within the papers. Referring to the reporting cycle, Mrs Harris said that it was the right time to report back on the actions in light of the results detailed within the report.  She highlighted the effect of the recent national boycott by teachers on SATs tests in Kent, advising that out of the 440 Kent primary schools, 25 schools had boycotted the SATs tests, out of those 25 schools, 3 schools were in floor targets.  Kent had 5% of its schools boycotted in comparison to West Sussex County Council, which had 45%.  Mrs Harris said that she looked forward to seeing the results.  Referring back to the chart she advised that the National Challenge had an early bank of results. She was able to divulge that out of 30 schools in the National Challenge the majority would be above the floor challenge, narrowing the gap between those children on free school meals and those non free school meals.  Mrs Harris then went on to explained the school schemes for those children on free school meals applying for and receiving laptops.

(3)         Mr Walder advised the Committee on the reasons why teachers belonging to the National Union for Teacher (NUT) boycotted the SATs tests.

(4)           The Chairman felt that it was essential that it was clear when the Committee would be able to review and scrutinise during the cycle for Key Stage 2.

(5)         In response to a question by Mr Critchely, Mrs Harris explained that a detailed report on the gifted and talented, in terms of the outcomes level 5 and 6 at Key Stage 2 and A* in GCSE would be submitted to the Committee in the Autumn by Mr Silk, Gifted & Talented Adviser.   The outcomes of those children gifted in sport, Art and drama will also be looked at.  In terms of scrutiny Mrs Harris suggested that the Committee could select a group of Gifted and Talented and an analysis of that group could be provided with the actions and questions outlined in the report.  In terms of monitoring, Mrs Harris suggested that there was an opportunity to look in depth at free/non school meals gap.

(6)         In response to a comment by Mr Jarvis, Mrs Harris explained that at 5A* to C, Kent was ranked 1 out of 11 but not in the case of including English and mathematics.  There was a need to work harder with the 74 schools that were below the floor target of 55% of children that achieved Level 4 in both English and mathematics with the right programme as it was different across the County.  The East Coast, Dartford and Gravesham were linked with areas of deprivation.  Mrs Harris felt that there was a real opportunity to analyse data to give patterns for urban and rural areas.

(7)         Mrs Haeusler advised that it was her intention to revise the School Improvement Strategy looking in particular at how the resources were managed.  She said that there was a need to be; proactive rather than reactive; let schools know about the concerns, monitor problems when they arise and move in when necessary well before OFSTED. The School Improvement Partners were in the schools daily and had a raft of data that could be drawn upon.

(8)         The Chairman asked that information be circulated to the Committee on Primary Key Stage 2 between meetings.

(9)         RESOLVED that the answers to Members comments and questions and requests be noted.