Agenda item

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

(Mrs S Rogers, Director of Standards and Improvement was present for this item)

1.            The Cabinet Committee considered a report that provided a summary of the Kent Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Assessments, KS1 and KS2 Standards Assessment Tests (SATs), GCSE and A Level results for 2013.

2.            The Director of Standards and Improvement, Mrs Rogers highlighted the work of the School Improvement Team explaining that although the Early Years attainment was strong at 64% this meant that 36% of five year olds entered Year 1 without a good level of development.  In Key Stage 1 there had been continued improvement, 78% of 7 year olds achieved a level 2 (b) at Key Stage 1. The focus of the School Improvement Team was to support and challenge schools with the data and to ask what the school was doing to ensure that those children made rapid progress in Year 3 so that it was not left at the end of Key Stage 2 to rapidly improve results when the pupils were thought to be unable to make Level 4.

3.             Case studies, on best practise in Kent and nationally in narrowing the gap, were being produced and would be shared with schools in January 2014. 

4.            Mrs Rogers explained that the Progress and Impact meetings were held every 6 weeks with all of the schools judged to be requiring improvement and those schools that were good and outstanding where there was concern with them retaining their good or outstanding standard.

5.            The School Improvement Team was working closely with the Diocesan colleagues and with the nine Teaching Schools across Kent and Medway [4 or 5 additional Teaching School were expected to be approved] to enhance the capacity of the School Improvement Team has to support schools. 

6.            Members noted that a new Primary curriculum was being introduced in September 2014.  The School Improvement Team was working with schools to ensure that they were prepared. 

7.            There had been good development at Key Stage 4 with 63% with 5 A* to C including English and mathematics but this meant that there were 37% leaving Year 11 without that English and mathematics qualification and 5 good GCSEs which was a concern.

8.            Mrs Rogers advised that 65 Kent secondary schools were academies and Kent had a good working relationship with the vast majority of those academies.  The School Improvement Team was working with them as well as maintained schools.

9.            The School Improvement Team was clear on the priorities that needed to be worked on throughout all the Key Stages and work was being undertaken with:

Ø      the Skills and Employability Team. 

Ø      the Early Years Teams that support schools and more than 760 private voluntary and independent providers in Kent. 

Ø      Children Centres to ensure that there were cohesive picture to ensure that children had the right support.

10.       Mrs Rogers stated that there were still too many children appearing at school at 4 years old who were not ready for school.  Work needed to continue with Early Years Providers and Children Centres to accelerate those children’s progress so that they arrived at school better prepared in their early learning development.

11.       Mr Leeson and Mrs Rogers responded to comments and questions by Members which included the following:

a)     Mr Leeson agreed to the percentages of children in future reports being translated as numbers of children.  He explained that the secondary cohort was between fifteen and sixteen thousand pupils so if 63% of the cohort gained  5 GCSEs A* to C including English and Mathematics it was equal to 6000 pupils going on to post 16 education that did not have the level 2 qualification.  This was an issue both nationally and in Kent although Kent was above the GCSE national average.  The participation rate in Kent was reasonably good at age 16+ at 89% to 90% which needed to be raised but there was a falling off at age 17 years down to 73% participation, this was based on last years figures. 

b)     Mr Leeson advised that there were nearly 37% of children on Free School Meals achieved five good GCSEs including English and Mathematics which was equivalent to 1500 to 1600 pupils, which was approximately 1000 pupils on Free School Meals moving on to post 16+ education or employment with training.  The expectation by the government was that every pupil, by the age of 19 years, would have achieved the equivalent of an A to C in English and Mathematics, which was needed for most employment. 

c)      Mr Leeson explained that the gap between the KS2 national average and Kent in 2013 equated to Kent ensuring that 480 additional Primary school pupils in Kent achieved Level 4 in reading, writing and mathematics for Kent to equal the national average figure.  Currently in Year 6 to achieve the national figure by closing those achievement gaps, for pupils on Free School Meals would be 1000 pupils doing better.

d)     Mr Leeson then spoke about the ongoing significant gender gap.  There was an acute gender gap at the Early Years Foundation Stage which continues at every key stage.  By age 16, in Kent 58% of boys and 67% of girls get 5 good GCSEs including English and mathematics so that  nearly half of boys in Kent move to Post 16 education without the Level 2 qualification.  This meant paying more attention to the progress and achievement of boys in the system was key.  He advised that some schools had no gender difference in the achievement of boys and girls and other schools had a very wide gap between the achievement of boys and girls.  Mr Leeson stated that there was no need for there to be a wide attainment gap between boys and girls and stressed the need for teaching to be attentive enough to the differing needs of boys and girls in such a way that it helped them make good enough rates of progress. 

e)     Mr Leeson explained that a lot of work had been carried out with schools on how the Pupil Premium was being used.  This had been carried out through; significant training and discussion over the past year to highlight the most effective interventions for closing the gap based on the work of organisations such as the Sutton Trust and the Education Endowment Foundation.  There were a number of evidence based approaches that had proven impact in narrowing the gap than others.  Most schools were putting the money into; providing small focused teaching groups for English and maths, providing mentoring, providing more opportunities to use IT, providing support for pupils to do their homework at school, and providing support beyond the school day.    The schools were also reminded that the government expected the school’s website to state how they were using the Pupil Premium.  Members were advised that Ofsted carried out a survey and of those Kent schools they surveyed only 40% of the websites had the correct information on their use of the Pupil Premium.   Part of the Ofsted inspection included the schools being clear on their strategies on closing the attainment gap through using the Pupil Premium and how it was making improvements.

f)        At the Headteacher briefing meetings there had been presentations from schools about this issue and schools were trying to ensure that they use the Pupil Premium resource carefully.

12.       RESOLVED that:-

a)           the responses to comments and questions by Members detailed in paragraph 11 above be noted;

b)           the significant improvement in many areas of school performance in 2013 be noted; and

c)            the areas that still require significant improvement and the priorities for action to ensure that improvement was achieved be noted.