Agenda item

1.            Mrs Game declared that her granddaughter attended Hartsdown Academy and that she had recently met with the head teacher of that school.

2.            Mr Luxmoore explained that he was Executive Headteacher of the Coastal Academies Trust which consisted of 4 schools in Thanet:  Cliftonville Primary School; Dane Court Grammar School; King Ethelbert School and Hartsdown Academy.  Royal Harbour Academy was an associate member of the Trust pending conversion to academy status and was regarded by the Department for Education as being a full member.

3.            Mr Luxmoore stressed the importance of Head Teachers working as a team to help reduce isolation, share responsibilities and work together, he considered that multi-academy trusts allowed for this to happen. 

4.            Mr Luxmoore reported that Cliftonville West was the most deprived area of Thanet with a significant Eastern European population.  Cliftonville Primary School was outstanding and had a huge positive impact on Pupil Premium (PP) students; there was no gap between PP students and their peers.  It was considered important to have an early impact in primary schools and this was being achieved at Cliftonville Primary. 

5.            Mr Luxmoore considered that the current PP scheme did not work because for a few hundred pounds teachers and schools were expected to overcome the effects of poverty on education and disadvantage within schools.  Mr Luxmoore explained that there was a need to provide an economic strategy, ownership and a reason to aspire within the relevant community.  He resented schools being punished for not closing the gap between PP students and their peers.  Mr Luxmoore was also un-convinced that family income was the best gauge for assessing whether students needed additional support.  There was an assumption that if parents had low income they had low parenting skills and Mr Luxmoore considered this to be untrue and offensive. 

6.            Members commented that Mr Luxmoore’s views were refreshing.  In response to questions Mr Luxmoore confirmed that children’s attainment was measured throughout primary school and at the end of primary school, there was a correlation with low attainment and Special Educational Needs (SEN).  Mr Luxmoore considered that rather than basing PP on family income it could be based on attainment measured in the reception year at primary schools to determine where children were in terms of their development.  This was current practice to ensure that schools were able to measure progress through to year 6.   

7.            Mr Luxmoore explained that PP money wasn’t ‘new’ money for schools and was often spent on running the entire school not spent solely on disadvantaged pupils.  Members asked how PP money was being spent across schools in the Coastal Academies Trust.  Mr Luxmoore explained that in most Secondary schools money was spent subsidising the running of schools, schools already targeted their spending to tackle low attainment.  It was considered that schools with low attaining students were more expensive to run than schools with high attaining students for reasons such as class sizes. 

8.            In response to a question about attendance Mr Luxmoore explained that there was a correlation between attendance and disadvantage.  Dane Court Grammar School had a 95% attendance rate and Royal Harbour Academy and Hartsdown Academy had 90%.  Schools had got better at breaking down attendance statistics to look at groups; some ethnic groups often had poorer attendance.

9.            In most Secondary Schools, the attainment gap closed when overall results were less successful, and widened when overall results were better.   Teachers would focus on PP students, ensuring that they knew who they were, had their work marked quickly and received feedback. 

10.         Members asked where there was evidence that PP money was being used to benefit students.  Mr Luxmoore confirmed that schools had to account for the spending of PP money; however it was not being spent solely on PP students.  Best practice demonstrated an awareness of who PP students were and challenged them to make better progress than they would otherwise.  Mr Luxmoore commented that best practice didn’t always cost money. 

11.         One member commented that low income parents did not necessarily have poor parenting skills but they were more limited in what they could offer their children.  On the Isle of Sheppey it was thought that one quarter of pupils rarely visited areas outside of Sheppey therefore their life experiences were limited. 

12.         Members asked what difference it would make if the PP funding was based on low attainment rather than low income?  Mr Luxmoore explained that if PP was based on attainment selective children wouldn’t receive support because their attainment would be higher; in addition Mr Luxmoore considered that it would make the distribution of PP funding more accurate.  Schools were already measuring attainment so this could be used to focus funding on low attainment. 

13.         Members asked what else KCC could do?  Mr Luxmoore considered that aspiration was important, for families to aspire to a good education.    It was considered that Thanet was often compared to London but families in London had greater aspirations than those in Thanet and there was no measure for aspiration.  It was very difficult to raise aspirations without giving people a reason to aspire. 

14.         Mr Luxmoore considered that there needed to be better ways of measuring the effectiveness of schools.  Members briefly discussed the National Funding Formula, the concept was to target more funding to deprived areas and the view was that no schools would lose money.

15.         It was considered that there was a significant number of children who didn’t qualify for PP and were therefore missing out, however in secondary schools it was thought that no child who needed extra support wasn’t getting it because PP was based on low income. Mr Luxmoore considered that PP funding should not be ring-fenced. 

16.         Members asked whether PP money was used to fund activities which were less academic, vocational courses such as car maintenance.  Mr Luxmoore gave the example of Thanet Skills Studio, it was expensive for schools to send students to the Studio so the numbers of students accessing vocational courses had reduced.  The changing nature of vocational skills courses and funding had also reduced the use of the Studio. 

17.         Mr Luxmoore explained that there was no consensus about what worked and didn’t work in relation to PP.  It was important to know who the PP children were, to ensure that their progress was being tracked and to ensure that no excuses were made for underachievement based on income. 

The Chairman thanked Mr Luxmoore for attending the Select Committee and for answering Members’ questions.