Agenda item

(Verbal Update by Mr M Whiting, Cabinet Member, Education, Learning and Skills and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director, Education, Learning and Skills)

1.                    The Chairman invited Mr Whiting and Mr Leeson to give their verbal updates.  Mr Whiting began by advising Members on of the following:

·        31 of 449 Primary schools were now academies

·        59 of 100 Secondary schools were now academies

·        One of the 24 special schools was now an academy

·        The Government had announcement that 261 schools would be rebuilt or refurbished across as part of the Priority Schools for Building Programme. He was pleased to announce that included in the list were 14 Kent schools, including Leyland Gap Special School. He was disappointed that the DFE had not approved the other applications from Kent that included the Foreland special school and Hartsdown Technology College. Both were in the original list for BSF but no funding has been granted to them.  Work would continue for those schools that did not receive funding in this tranche.   KCC’s funding would be looked at so that those schools in most urgent need of capital funding can be supported.  He concluded that academies in the County had been successful in their individual applications including Fulston Manor School that received over £3million for capital build.

2.                    Mr Leeson gave his verbal update and advised Members on the following:

·        The Strategy for Improvement in Kent was to both support the schools that need improvement most, in a targeted way; and to promote a wider strategy for improvement with all Kent schools, to encourage schools to work with each other in partnership and work with the local authority.  There was a clear commitment from good and outstanding schools in Kent to support other schools.  There was now a developing network of schools in Partnership between groups of schools across Kent to share resources and share expertise. This focused on three key issues:

Ø      To improve Standards of Literacy, especially at Key Stage 2;

Ø      To improve the quality of teaching in schools from satisfactory to good overall; and

Ø      To increase the rate of Kent schools overall, for those judged to be satisfactory to become good schools or outstanding schools.

·        There were targets set within Bold Steps for significant improvement by 2015 in those areas mentioned above.

·        The Kent Association of Headteachers was proving to be effective organisation in supporting and promoting this work too. 

3.                    There was a determination to be more effective at District base working.  Each District worked differently, they had different issues and the locality was the most meaningful way to think about improvement and joint working.  Work was being undertaken to create a district base model.  There were now, through the recent restructuring, dedicated named officers who would be working together as a team in each district in both Education and Social Care.  This was proving helpful to schools in having a clear contact point for support in their area.

4.                    Resources were being removed from county level to a district based model. Mr Leeson gave the example of the devolution of the Specialist Teaching service being moved to a district base model referred to in a later agenda item.  There was also a review of the Pupil Referral Unit provision in Kent.  The Districts had been asked to come forward with their own proposals on how they would like to see this happening in the future.

5.                    The 14-24 Strategy would be published in the early Autumn of 2012, this would include the development of local district based 14-19 Partnerships of schools employers and colleges and other agencies so that the work to be carried out for young people was more effective on the ground in Kent.

6.                    Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:

a)     A request was made for a list of the 14 Kent schools, in each category, that were on the School Refurbishment Programme list to receive capital funding.  The Chairman advised that there was a Capital Monitoring Group which gave the opportunity for Members to discuss and monitor the Capital Programme in more depth.  Mr Whiting advised that he and Mr Leeson had written to both the DfE and Lord Hill, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, for information and clarification on why those particular 14 schools had been chosen over and above those that were not chosen.  Mr Whiting stated that he felt, that although those 14 schools were deserving cases, there were schools that were equally deserving and in need of assistance yet had missed out.  Kent needed to understand why these 14 schools were allocated funding in this tranche and not the other 34 that were on Kent’s.

b)     A Member referred to a recent report on Schools that was built on Building Schools for the Future (BSF).  That concluded that when a school was built fit for purpose, those schools had improved their pupils’ academic achievement, showing that if you build an educational environment it improved the standards of attainment. Mr Whiting responded saying that he considered BSF was unaffordable. The Chairman added that 9 of the 14 schools that were on the list were primary schools therefore would not have qualified under BSF.

c)      In reply to a question, Mr Whiting advised that the 14 schools were not Kent’s top 14 schools.  All of the schools on Kent’s list were felt to be a priority.  Some academies had put in their own bids. Kent would continue to pursue capital funding for those schools.

d)     In response to a request, Mr Leeson agreed to supply the details of the nominated district Officers to Members of this Cabinet Committee. 

e)     Clarification was sought on the terms “Kent Schools” and “Local Authority Schools”; Mr Whiting explained that they were all “Kent Schools”, he did not differentiate.  Mr Leeson added that he saw little difference in schools being academies.  We had to use different language for different schools maintained by the DFE and local authority and in applications for funding.

7.                  RESOLVED that :-

a)                 the responses to comments and questions by Members be noted; and

b)                 a report on the Capital Priority Programme be submitted to the next meeting of this Cabinet Committee.