Agenda item

1.    Mr Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform, introduced the item; he thanked the Members of the Select Committee for their valuable contribution and invited discussion on the 3 month progress report.

2.    The Cabinet Member spoke briefly about the Government’s Green Paper ‘Schools that work for everyone’, it was considered that Kent was already discussing many of the issues raised in the consultation document.

3.    Mr Gough highlighted three key areas within the update report;

a.    Outreach to families which was vitally important to KCC;

b.    Admissions - KCC had previously tried to challenge the admission arrangements of the super selective schools in Kent but this had not been successful.  KCC was consulting on changes for schools where KCC was the admission authority and KCC was seeking to encourage other schools to consider similar admission arrangements;

c.    Transport – a new county Transport Policy was being developed and should be available by the end of 2016.

4.    Mr Gough welcomed recommendation 13 of the Select Committee’s report but further investigation was needed to enable the Council to ‘means test’ families which were low income but not entitled to Free School Meals.  

5.    The Green Paper identified working families who were ‘just about managing’ as a group, if the paper became policy there would be a need for the Government to track what was working for that group.  This might provide a way for the Council to deal with this issue although the admissions team was looking at alternative approaches.   

6.    A Member commented that the report should have been written in the name of the Cabinet Member, the Cabinet Member assured the Member that he had signed off the report and that this had been an oversight.

7.    Mrs Whittle, Chairman of the Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Select Committee, was invited to comment on the 3 month update report.  She explained that a strong partnership between the Primary School Head Teachers and the Local Authority was critical.  Questions had been raised about how the pupil premium was being used in schools to support academically able pupils; the Select Committee had had concerns that children from low income families, but who were academically able, were not being put forward for the Kent Test.  600 children who were in receipt of the pupil premium had done well at Key Stage 2 but had not gone on to a selective school.  It was essential to look at how children were being supported at primary school, how the brightest children were being stretched and whether more vigorous action was needed by the Head Teachers to support children from poorer backgrounds. 

8.    Mr Vye, a Member of the Select Committee, was invited to speak to the Scrutiny Committee; he highlighted the promotion of social mobility through all schools. 

9.    In response to a comment from a Member about the phrase ‘we will’ within the report Mr Gough confirmed that the work was being undertaken, this was a presentational point and perhaps the service was underselling itself. 

10. A Member welcomed the Select Committee update report and the concept of equal opportunities for all children.  A strong partnership between the Head Teachers and Kent County Council or the Admission Authority was critical. 

11. A Member welcomed the suggestion of the social mobility pack within the progress report.  There was also an issue with the lack of aspiration amongst low income parents.  The Member asked for confirmation on the status of free schools, were they classed as all ability or still non selective?  The Cabinet Member confirmed that free schools were all ability schools.

12.   In response to a question about the feedback from the conference held with primary school Head Teachers, the Cabinet Member confirmed that he would circulate the feedback from the primary conference to Members of the Committee. 

13. It was considered that the Head Teacher’s decisions over which pupils should take the Kent Test were critical, should all children doing well at Key Stage 2 take the Kent Test?  The Cabinet Member explained that Buckinghamshire County Council had trialled an opt in model where all pupils sat a test at the end of primary school to determine whether they were grammar ability, however this had not boosted the numbers of children in the ‘free school meals’ category obtaining a place at a grammar school. 

14. The Cabinet Member commented on the point about aspirations of parents and explained that often it was the case that low income families did not think that a grammar school was the right place for their child.  It was important to challenge and seek to overcome this.    

15. A Member who was also on the Select Committee explained that if recommendation 13 had not been included within the report it would not have been signed off by the Select Committee, it would be helpful to receive a further progress report setting out progress on recommendation 13. 

16. In relation to the packs for parents the cost of this had been raised previously and whether it was done online or via paper copies.  The responses to the recommendations had been good and the directorate had taken heed of the concerns raised by the select committee.  It was not possible to force the primary Head Teachers to do what they did not want to do.  There was hope that the packs for parents could be progressed and a member requested that the Cabinet Committee should monitor the progress of recommendation 13. 

17. One of the Parent Governor Representatives raised a point about pupil premium families with low aspirations for their children.  There were concerns that the most able children from non-academic families got less support than academic families in the appeals process.  It was necessary to encourage the parents in low income families to get the right support. 

18. The Cabinet Member was sympathetic to the points made by members of the Committee; there was an aim to ensure that grammar schools took a broad approach to admissions.  Mr Gough had concerns about some of the suggestions set out within the green paper, notably those that suggested ‘quota’ arrangements. 

19. Regarding the opt in or opt out system for the Kent Test Mrs Whittle explained that there was no evidence that the opt out system made a difference to the number of free school meal children at grammar schools.  The critical question was how to ensure children from poorer backgrounds could access a grammar school place.  To close the gap lower income families needed support to enable children to take the Kent test if they were academically able and with the support of their parents. 

20. One Member questioned how success would be measured?  Mr Gough suggested that it could be measured by looking at the proportions of children doing well at Key Stage 2 from a pupil premium background and compare with those doing equally well from the wider population.  There was a 20% differential between the two groups.   

RESOLVED that Members of the Scrutiny Committee thank the Cabinet Member, Select Committee Chairman and Officer for attending the meeting and for answering Members’ questions.  Members acknowledged the completed actions and stated approach to delivering the Select Committee recommendations as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.