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.         Mr Gough introduced the report and advised that there had been a significant rate of improvement with more Kent schools judged to be good or outstanding.  Those schools that were judged by Ofsted to be at risk were being managed.

2.         Mr Leeson added that the targets for 2014 had been exceeded and this rate of progress needed to be maintained. Referring to the table on page 326 in the report he explained that there were risks to this as out of the 18 schools that were inspected by Ofsted some remained “requiring improvement”.  Through working in partnership with the schools, there was confidence that the majority of those schools would achieve a good inspection outcome by July 2014.  The targets were set above 86% to achieve figures above the national average which was 78%.

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

a)     A comment was made that it was good to see that there was a good rate of progress from 56% to 78% of Kent schools above the national average and commended the work undertaken by the Area Officers and the rigorous detailed work undertaken with the teaching staff in Kent schools.

b)     In response to a question about what could be done about schools that were not responding to a poor Ofsted rating, Mr Leeson advised that it was part of the Headteachers’ role in Kent to ensure that the teaching improved consistently in their schools.  The rate of improvement would only happen if we succeed in getting schools to work in partnership.  Few schools now believed in standalone schools.  Kent school were working in clusters and federations to sustain their futures.

c)      Referring to the table on page 326 headed “Requires Improvement to Good” in the report; a request was made for the list of the schools not in the table.

d)     Referring to the Table under the heading “Ofsted Inspections September 2013 to February 2014” a comment was made that the Table showed the movement of schools with an Ofsted rating going up and it would be helpful to have a Table showing the schools with Ofsted ratings that were going down too.

e)     Mr Leeson advised that there could be barriers put up by those academies that did not want to work with the local authority and this may cause difficulties in challenging those academies when they needed to be challenged.  He advised that when he had concerns regarding an academy he wrote to the Department of Education regarding those concerns.

f)       Mr Leeson explained that an Ofsted inspection did take into account the number of children within the school where English was their second language (ESL) although this did not excuse poor rates of progress.  Headteachers were provided with many resources and support for ESL.  The main issue was the quality of the teaching.

g)     Mr Leeson explained that there were a range of intervention powers that were in place to be used when a school was failing.  These included; replacing the governing body with an interim governing body; the local authority also had delegated power to take over the management the school’s finances.  Since the Academies Act the Secretary of State can require a failing school to become an academy.

4.         RESOLVED that the responses to comments and questions by Members and the progress being achieved; and the information in the report be noted.