Agenda item

(Report by Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform and Mr P Leeson, Corporate Director for Education Learning and Skills)

1.            The Corporate Director, Mr Leeson, introduced a report on the Education, Learning and Skills Performance Management Framework, which was the monitoring tool for the targets and the milestones set out in Bold Steps for Education.

2.            Mr Leeson highlighted that there had been an increase in the rate in which the SEN statutory assessments and statementing of pupils were completed.  The statutory timescales were an important indicator to get the right results and responses for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities quickly enough.  This had increased to over 90% which was a significant improvement to the position a year ago.

3.            Mr Leeson stated that there was also a good reduction in those people aged 18-24 in Kent who were unemployed and this continued to reduce and was currently down to 5% this month and there had also been an increase in young people entering the apprenticeship programme.  The Not in Education Employment or Training (NEET) figures in the report were particularly high for this time of year and were not part of the usual trend. The trend was downwards overall from 6% of NEET young people in 2012 to 5% at the end of the last school year in 2013.  The blip indicated in the report was the process of settling numbers down during late August /September, October/November as more young people were followed up for a guaranteed destination of learning or employment with training past the age of 16.  Mr Leeson assured Members that when those NEET figures were presented again they would have reduced to 5% or less.

4.            Mr Leeson then highlighted the continuing downward trend of permanent exclusions in Kent from 209 last year down to 143 at the end of the last school year.  This was achieved as a result of many initiatives including; the review of the Pupil Referral Units (PRU), the development of an Integrated Adolescent Support Service, a commitment of secondary schools that had formed management committees of the reformed PRUs, not to permanently exclude when alternatives were available and the development of a better alternative curriculum offer, which provided a different pathway for pupils that might be at risk of exclusion. The downward trend was expected to continue to achieve the Bold Steps target of 40 in 2015/16.

5.            Mr Leeson responded to comments and questions by Members which included the following:

a)     A comment was made that the achievements of the Early Years and Foundation Key stages were excellent.

b)     A request was made for a breakdown of the GSCE results as figures rather than percentages.

c)      Mr Leeson advised that the following response to the Members question was to be his opening statement on Item C2 on the agenda.  There had been continuous improvement in all Key Stages every year. The narrowing of the gap for Kent’s Early Years Foundation was the third best in the country.  This progress would need to continue at a good enough rate at Key Stage 1 and 2 (KS1and KS2) especially for children from deprived backgrounds as their attainment gap had widened. 

d)     Mr Leeson stated that the changes in how the attainment levels in reading, writing and mathematics were now combined and measured had presented more challenge to schools. If each pupils’ attainment was not tracked to ensure that they were making good enough rates of progress and similar rates of progress in reading and writing and mathematics the school would not reach a particular level of outcome at the end of KS2 combined.  The results in Kent were a 2% improvement on the same measure the previous year.  74% of children achieved a level 4 in reading, writing and mathematics, which is 1% below the national average although the trend was up from what was being achieved in the last several years in Kent.  Just below 200 Kent primary schools improved their results at KS2 out of 450 Kent primary schools, therefore more primary schools had to improve their results year on year.

e)     At KS4 the results improved significantly to 63% in pupils achieving 5 good GCSEs including English and Mathematics which was up 2% from the year before and was 4% above the national average. 75 of the 101 secondary schools in Kent improved or sustained their GCSE performance or declined by less than 1% which was a strong upward tend.

f)        There was a minimal improvement in the “A” level results in Kent; the trend was a very slight improvement year on year on some measures.

g)     Although there was careful tracking of pupils’ progress and most schools were clear on what they needed to achieve and came close to the targets that they set out to achieve.  The more effective the school was the more predictability there was on their assessments of pupil attainment and progress.  The local authority would hold its usual checks with the schools on their expectations and progress rates for pupils in Kent in January on what should be achieved in the Summer but there could be surprises. Even the best schools can have a certain level of confidence but a pupil may not achieve in line with expectations on the day set for level 4 in reading writing and mathematics. Those disappointments were usually marginal.  The schools where there were the biggest surprises were not good enough yet at assessing progress and tracking the progress of individual pupils and also carrying out the kind of analysis of the learning and the content of the curriculum that needed to be covered and addressed in order to ensure that young people achieved level 4 in reading, writing and mathematics and good GCSEs in English and Mathematics eventually.  That combination of assessment was used to inform teachers on what was needed to accelerate and maintain good rates of progress for individual pupils. 

h)      Mr Leeson stated that there was still too much of a mixed picture in Primary schools in Kent and although the number of good schools had increased in Kent significantly, there were still not enough good schools and we continue to be below the national average.

6.            RESOLVED that:-

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

b)           the development of the Education, Learning and Skills performance management framework and the current performance on key indicators be noted.