Agenda item

To receive verbal updates by the relevant Cabinet Members and Corporate Director for the Education and Young People’s Services Portfolio.

(Mr Cowan made a declared of interest as he is a Foster Parent)

1.            The Cabinet Members, Mr Gough and Mr Oakford; and the Corporate Director, Mr Leeson gave their verbal updates highlighting the following:

2.            Mr Gough advised that the GCSE results were in line with the first entry level results that were achieved in 2014.

3.            Many MPs had been raising their concerns about the issue of Fair Funding as parts of the country had been underfunded in relation to schooling.  Kent was one of those that had been underfunded especially when looking at the schools block. Last year there had been some mini reforms from the government with the allocation of £390m to support some of the underfunded local authorities but the way this had been drawn up meant that Kent did not benefit.  This was because it did not take account of the degree of extensive delegation and devolution to schools that Kent had undertaken over the years, in accordance to what the government had been keen for local authorities to do, particularly in areas of high need. Mr Gough assured Members that Kent would remain engaged in the debate and considered that there was some prospect of improvement in the area of the schools block but he was wary of seeing a repeat of reforms which by not taking in the full picture would not work in Kent's favour. He added that with aggregate DSG flat cash settlements it was not clear that the government could move radically without creating large numbers of losers as well as winners.

4.            A report was being submitted to the Governance and Audit Committee on 2 October 2015 that had Education and Young People’s Services Cabinet Committee relevance.  The report related to a complaint from School Governors that addressed a number of issues, in particular, the scope for complaints of that kind to go to the Local Government Ombudsman.  The Local Government Ombudsman had taken a view that it had no locus in this area and took the view that it should be able to be complained to, if appropriate.  The paper would also look at improving the process and record keeping regarding decisions made in accordance with some statutory powers.

5.            Mr Gough responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    Mr Gough advised that it was incumbent on the Local Authority to act as an advocate for those schools that were having budget difficulties.  A vast amount of schools funding was driven by pupil numbers.  There were serious concerns regarding the 2013 school funding reforms and the impact of Kent’s ability to provide support to schools that were undergoing periods of financial pressure.  He referred to the situation of secondary schools giving the example of a maintained school; Chaucer Technology School, Canterbury and Oasis Academy, Hextable that were both closed at the time due to low pupil numbers and deficit budget situations. Both closures could be soon followed by the need to put back secondary provision in those areas, when the intake of secondary pupils will increase in the next few years.  Representations had been made on this issue and for more flexibility in the way that the government applied this to all schools in Kent.

b)    Mr Gough advised that there were significant changes to how vocational courses were treated last year.  The issues this year were about GCSE grade boundaries which was still the subject of appeals.  There was now a greater focus on core subjects.   Mr Leeson referred to the Wolfe report recommendations and the removal of a large number of vocational qualifications from those that could be counted as GCSE equivalent grades.  There was a significant falling off of schools delivering vocational courses because they would no longer count in GCSE outcomes.  In the past two to three years there had been a dip in the extent to which the vocational offer had been available in schools.  Mr Leeson considered that schools had picked up the ball quickly following the delivery of new vocational and technical qualifications and that this year’s results had not been overly affected.  The issues this year were to do with what had been happening with developing new GCSE qualifications and changes to grade boundaries, especially with IGCSE in English.  Schools have had to make quick decisions in a short period of time in turbulent change about what their KS4 curriculum should include and what should be available.  He considered that there had been an impact this year in a number of schools in terms of what had been achieved.  This had an impact on the options and pathways that were available to Post 16 year olds. All schools were aware that young people were expected to stay in the system beyond the age of 16 on a training or further learning pathway. This was a key area and one of enormous change that had not bedded down yet.

6.            Mr Leeson gave his verbal update.  He advised on the outcome of a process looking at the future direction of Community Learning and Skills.  There had been a proposal for Community Learning and Skills to become a local authority trading company for its future sustainability. Following much work, the decision was made that it would be better for the service to remain in KCC with a new commissioning approach to the service giving a clear client-provider relationship between the County Council and Community Learning and Skills.

7.            Many schools had improved their examination results.  244 Kent Primary schools performed above the national average this year, 22 Primary schools were below the floor standard.  

8.            Mr Leeson advised that overall, the schools’ provisional National Curriculum and examination results were positive.  The Early Years Foundation Stage results [5yr olds] 73% of those children achieved a good level of development.  This result was above the national average of 62%.  KS1 [7yr olds] improved in reading, writing and maths.  The results were above the national average of 84%-85% of youngster achieving in reading and maths but was slightly lower in writing.  In KS2 [11yr olds] there was a small but welcome uplift in the results achieving the combined Level 4 in reading, writing and maths to just over 80%.  This figure was 78.8% last year.  The results were provisional and last year there was a 1% uplift after the validated results were received.  He reminded Members that in 2011 the figure was 65% and in 2012 it was 72% indicating a good upward trend at KS2. 

9.            Mr Leeson advised that the GCSE results were stable in line with what was achieved in 2014.  57.4% had achieved 5 good GCSEs including English and maths, which was above the national average last year.  There had been turbulence in the results again this year.  Some schools had done very well improving their performance and a number of schools had surprising dips in their GCSE outcomes.  There were more secondary schools now below the secondary floor standard, currently 40% of pupils achieving 5 good GCSEs including English and maths, this was 29 schools.  There was significant work to be carried out with those schools to consider what the underlining causes for the dip in outcomes were.

10.         Mr Leeson reflected on Post 16 saying that performance remained static, with a slight increase in the number of A and B grades achieved at A Level.   There had been a three year decline in core A Level performance overall. Mr Leeson reminded Members of the July Ofsted figures for the good and outstanding schools in Kent was 82%, including 83% of Secondary schools and 82% of Primary schools and 87% of Special Schools.  90% of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).  This continued an upward trend in terms of Ofsted outcomes and a welcome improvement of 10% in Primary school performance over the last year.  The number of Kent schools requiring improvement had reduced to 85.  There were 67 Primary schools and 14 secondary schools that were not yet good schools.  The impact on pupils was significant, with 83% of pupils in Kent now attending a good or outstanding school.  Members were reminded that this figure was 62% in 2012, a 20% improvement made a great difference to pupils’ life chances.  In 2012, 126,000 Kent pupils attended a good or outstanding school.  In 2015, 178,000 Kent pupils attended a good or outstanding school.

11.         All of the new school places had been delivered for September this year, the majority of which were for Primary school places. 19 new forms of entry had been added to Primary at reception year classes and 300 temporary reception places that would not be needed in the long term.  A small number had also been added to secondary schools eg a new form of entry at the Judd school, Tonbridge.  In total, over the last year, more than 2500 places had been added to the Primary schools in Kent.  Mr Leeson referred to the Education Commissioning Plan and said that officers continued to work hard to keep pace with the increasing demand for school places through migration into Kent on a continual basis.  There were a significant number of new arrivals, this summer, of families and children that the local authority was not aware of.  Through the work of the Admissions Team and Area Education Officers 150 children arrived in the summer who needed school places of which there were 14 children that the Local Authority was still working with to secure a school place for the start of the new school year.  Mr Leeson highlighted that this had taken a lot of work and cooperation of schools to go over their Published Admissions Number.  He expressed his gratitude to those schools for responding so positively.

12.         Mr Leeson responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    Mr Leeson explained that there were many factors regarding the A levels and Post 16 results, one of which was a number of students following A level pathways  who perhaps would achieve more following high level technical and vocational qualifications instead.  Last year the vocational qualifications Post 16 were very positive and had improved significantly and had good outcomes for a number of Post 16 students.

b)    Mr Leeson said that the migration into Kent was mostly from areas of London.  They were locating in the North of Kent in Gravesham, Swale and Sheppey, adding to increasing pressures on school places.  Mr Gough added that progress measures were important.  A Key point from the Education and Adoption Bill was the definition of a “coasting school”.  There were definitions of absolute levels of performance and also progress. Kent was keen to advocate strongly the focus on progress, with the system in Kent with absolute levels Kent schools were likely to be caught by the floor measure in terms of absolute performance, even if they were doing well in their progress.

c)    Mr Leeson advised that this would be the last year for reporting on the national curriculum levels and the last year for reporting on 5 GCSEs with English and maths. Members noted that next year the reporting on school results would be unfamiliar. 

d)    The Education and Young People’s Services Directorate was congratulated on its achievements.

e)    The improvement in the Ofsted reviews of the PRUs was welcomed.

f)     A comment was made that the gap in the Early Years Foundation Stage was very important at this level.

g)    A request was made for a future report on diminishing the attainment gap.  Mr Leeson advised that a more detailed report would be submitted to the December meeting on the outcomes which would include the detail regarding attainment gaps etc.

h)   Mr Leeson advised that there were many things that needed to be in place to improve the attainment levels at A level and Post 16.  This included the curriculum offer expanded to meet the development needs of all young people.  There were still gaps in provision in parts of Kent.  There was a need to ensure that every young person coming to the age of 16 years achieves the best they can but those opportunities needed to be available Post 16 and onwards.  The vocational opportunities needed to be available in 6^th Form as well as FE colleges.

i)     Mr Leeson agreed to give Members information to support their understanding on the new way the curriculum was being measured and reported as from next year. It was advised that School Governors would need support too.

13.         Mr Oakford gave his verbal updates highlighting that he attended the Virtual School Kent (VSK) Annual Awards Day that celebrates the academic achievement of children in care. He advised that all categories of attainment bar one were above the national average.  Mr Oakford commended the work of the Headteacher of VSK, Mr T Doran, and his Team.

14.         The Cabinet Committee noted that there had been less Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) arriving in Kent during September. However, there had been a change in the makeup of those children with more under 16 year olds in September than seen in previous months.  This would put more pressures on school places.  He advised that there were currently 730 UASC children in Kent.  He clarified that the number had reduced as when they turn 18 years old they became care leavers.  As a care leaver, if they were in education the local authority was still responsible for them until they were 21 years old.  Mr Oakford advised that the number of care leavers was growing as the UASC became 18 years old. He advised that the support from the government was lower for a care leaver and this was where the largest gap was and biggest financial burden.  There were currently 400 care leavers and the number was growing each week.     Since the Cabinet Committee last met two temporary reception centres had been opened; Swattenden Centre, Cranbrook and Ladesfield, Whitstable, to accommodate the increased number of UASC.

15.         Mr Oakford formally thanked the Youth Service Team who managed to make the buildings ready to receive the UASC in four weeks.

16.         Mr Oakford explained that the Corporate Director, Andrew Ireland, through a network had approached other local authorities through a voluntary distribution system.  To date 35 UASC had been placed within other local authorities [The local authority where the child was placed would have full financial and care responsibility and accountability].  The Cabinet Committee noted that some UASC had been placed outside of Kent but remained Kent’s responsibility which put pressure on the resources.

17.         A short documentary was produced and released to the media that showed interviews with a few of the UASC in the reception centre [The identities of the UASC were disguised].  Mr Oakford said this was carried out in response to the influx of enquires from the national press, to allow the local authority to retain control of the situation.  However, there was an incident where a report interviewed a young person in supported accommodation over a long period of time. The reporter was advised not to use the film as Kent as the Corporate Parent did not give permission and would seek to take legal action if any part of the interview was released.

18.         Kent continued to have discussions with the government on a national dispersal scheme to move the UASC across the UK, so that the young people can be better supported.   Mr Oakford considered that the news that the UK was going to take in refugees from Syria, reported in the national press, had deflected the attentions away from this at present but Kent would keep that dialogue going.

19.         Mr Oakford responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    Mr Cowan congratulated the effective work of the VSK Team.

b)    A comment was made that it was important for the UASC to be assessed as soon as possible so that those young people can be in school. 

c)    A Member commented that they were pleased and supported the decision to control the information released to the media by making a short documentary and regretted the incident of a young person being used by the media.

d)    Mr Oakford advised that money had been received from the government for last financial year and for the first quarter of this financial year but there was still funding that had not been received.  He reminded Members that the largest funding gap was with the care leavers as only half of the cost was covered by the government.  The government had suggested that the allowance for this financial year should be slightly less than in the past which would create more of a challenge.  The Leader was corresponding with the government regarding funding.

e)    The Youth Service was thanked for the efficient way it reacted over Swattenden Centre, Cranbrook.

f)     Mrs Hohler advised that a suitable location had been found for the Youth Hub in Tunbridge Wells and was underway.

g)    Mr Oakford advised that between 8 and 10% of UASC were likely to go missing.  It was assumed that part of this was due to trafficking.  This put pressure on the Police and other agencies.  For the time a child was missing they remained on the missing register, some were never found.

20.         RESOLVED that the responses to questions by Members and the information given in the verbal updates be noted with thanks.