Agenda item
Education standards in Brent 2010
This report outlines key trends in education standards for 2010 achieved by schools in Brent at the end of each key stage.
Minutes:
Faira Ellks (Head of School Improvement, Children and Families) introduced the report which set out the education standards achieved in Brent schools at each key stage for 2010. Faira Ellks then provided a brief summary of the results for the early years foundation stage and for each key stage. Members heard that the common trends included the relatively good performance from pupils of Asian/Indian and White British heritage and the underperformance of other groups such as those of Somali heritage, although there had been significant improvements in some areas.
Hilary Bell (School Improvement Services, Children and Families) then covered in some detail the information provided in the report with regard to the Early Years Foundation Stage (EFYS) performance. Amongst the points highlighted included that despite the initiatives introduced, results had been disappointing and were below the national average. The key indicator used by national agencies, the percentage of children scoring 78 points plus across all areas of learning, including in personal, social and emotional development (PSED) and in communication, language, and literacy development (CLLD), had fallen by two points compared to 2009. Girl pupils had continued to outperform boys, with the gap widening by two points in 2010. The performance of Black Caribbean and White British children had improved by two and four points respectively, however the performance of Somali and White Other heritage pupils was particularly low by comparison. The gap between the highest and lowest performing pupils, the second key indicator, had fallen by four points but remained wider than the national gap.
Hilary Bell then explained that the reasons for the performance could be attributed to overly cautious judgements because of the robust systems for completion of the EYFS profile and the moderation of assessments, the strong focus on supporting children working within one to three points and the high mobility of EYFS staff meaning some staff were relatively inexperienced. To address this, the School Improvement Service has established a Quality Improvement Team to identify underachievement and to provide support and challenge according to need. The schools which have the lowest attaining 20% of children had been identified and measures were being taken to ensure the appropriate levels of support are in place. The lowest performing 20% of children in each locality were also analysed by ethnicity and gender in order to facilitate targeting of support. Other measures included increased focus on children attaining 4/5 points, the production of self-evaluation guidance from the Quality Improvement Team, an increase in the number of moderation meetings for practitioners and working with the National Strategies EFYS team to identify good practice and disseminate this more widely. Hilary Bell concluded by stating that there were strong reasons to believe that 2010 represented a blip in performance and standards would rise again in 2011.
Faira Ellks then drew Members’ attention to performance at Key Stage 1. Overall, attainment at the Level 2+ key national benchmark remained below the national average at all levels and all subjects, with standards rising in reading and writing but falling in mathematics and science. A similar picture emerged for Level 2b, however for Level 3, although still below national averages, the gap had narrowed and standards had risen in all subjects. Girls performed better in all subjects at Level 2+ and 2b compared to boys, whilst boys performed better at mathematics in Level 3. Encouragingly, free school meal (FSM) pupils performed as well or better than FSM pupils nationally in all subjects and at all levels, whilst the gap for non free school meals pupils in Brent remained the same for reading and writing, decreased slightly for science but increased slightly in mathematics. Asian Indian and White British pupils continued to perform above the national averages in reading, writing and mathematics. Although the performance of Black Caribbean pupils was below the national average for all pupils in the same subjects, the gap had reduced significantly in the last three years. Similarly, although the performance of Somali pupils remained significantly below the national average in reading, writing and mathematics, there had also been a narrowing of the gap. Special Educational Needs (SEN) pupils had attained better than average results nationally for reading and writing and this upward trend had been evident in the last three years.
Turning to Key Stage 2, Faira Ellks advised that English and mathematics at Level 4+ and Level 5 were for the first time above the national average and standards had risen in both these subjects. Science at Key Stage 2 was assessed through teacher assessment only in 2010. However, performance had continued to decline and this followed the national trend which could be attributable to the Government focusing on English and mathematics. Although non-FSM pupils continued to perform better than FSM pupils, the gap had narrowed and FSM pupils performed better than FSM pupils nationally. Members noted that Asian Indian and White British pupils continued to be above Brent and national averages in English and mathematics, whilst for the first time the performance of Black Caribbean pupils was three points above the national average for all pupils in English and that of Asian Pakistani pupils one point above the national average of all pupils in English and mathematics combined. Somali pupil performance, although low by comparison, had improved significantly for English and mathematics and the gap had narrows considerably. The Key Stage 2 SEN/non-SEN gap was narrower than the national gap for 2008 and 2009, whilst the national 2010 figures were presently unavailable. The other key indicator, the percentage of pupils making at least two levels of progress in English and mathematics from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2, was above the national average. Faira Ellks reported that there were no schools in Brent below the national floor target of 55% in 2010. However, she advised that the national floor target was to increase to 60% and at present eight Brent schools were below or fairly close to this score.
Fiona Deegan (Secondary Strategy Manager, Children and Families) presented the performance results for Key Stage 3. She began by advising that the national SATs tests are now non-statutory for secondary schools and so outcomes were based on teacher assessments. Members noted that comparisons with national data were complicated by the fact that schools used a variety of different strategies for measuring pupils’ performance, as well as schools having a degree of flexibility in structuring the curriculum, so key stage assessments were not always based on pupils who had completed Year 9. In addition, one high performing school had problems with uploading data and their results were not included in the report. Performance at Level 5+ fell by one point in each of the subjects, with English and mathematics below the national averages. However at Level 6+ it had risen slightly in mathematics and science, whilst English and mathematics were in line with national averages at this level. The committee heard that this may be attributable to schools focusing on pupils who were at Level 5 and below. Fiona Deegan stated that the School Improvement Service continued to work closely with schools to ensure the accuracy of teacher assessment and the importance of good progress at Key Stage 3 in order to secure outcomes at Key Stage 4. Support was also being provided in science as a new GCSE specification was anticipated in 2011 and attention was focused on strengthening teaching and learning, particularly in lower performing schools.
At Key Stage 4, Fiona Deegan reported that pupils had surpassed the national average for achieving five good GCSE results and Brent was ranked 29th out of 150 local authorities on this measure, despite being near the bottom for levels of deprivation. No schools were below the floor target of 30% in 2010, with four schools that were below or in line with this target in 2009 all showing significant improvement in results. The floor target had since been raised to 35% and one school was currently performing just above this target. A key objective of the DfE is the level of progress of pupils between Key Stages 2 and 4 and in this respect progress had risen steadily over the last three years and remained well above national averages, with boys in particular improving more rapidly. Overall, the performance of SEN pupils was above the national average, and in some cases significantly so, and the gap in performance between SEN and non-SEN pupils was reducing. Members noted that the School Improvement Service was providing support and advice for schools in designing the curriculum for the English Baccalaureate to optimise pupil achievement in this qualification.
Fiona Deegan then summarised performance for Key Stage 5, where there had been a significant improvement in Level 3 results in 2010, with average point scores improving by the equivalent of one A-level grade, a higher rate of improvement than in London and nationally. Overall, the average point score was now above the London average and just one A-level grade below the national average. Similarly, the average level three point score per entry had increased at a greater rate than in London and nationally and this was particularly encouraging as a greater proportion of pupils were starting at lower levels based on their GCSE results. Fiona Deegan advised that the A level value added performance had improved from good in 2009 to excellent in 2010 and Brent was within the top 25% of performers nationally, and for mathematics was proportionally amongst the highest in the UK.
During discussion, Ms J Cooper sought reasons as to some teachers not attending the EYFS profile training and what action was being taken to address this. With regard to possible overcautious assessments regarding EYFS performance, she commented that this was only one aspect of assessing a pupil’s performance and so their progress should not be solely based on this assessment, especially as there were other activities a pupil may do that would reflect their ability at this age. Ms J Cooper also asked what groups were Afghani pupils classified under in the performance data. Mrs Hawra Imame sought a further explanation as to the inequalities in achievement between ethnic groups. Kishan Parshotam enquired why overall performance for Asian/Indian and Black pupils had fallen in 2010 compared to the improving trend from 2007-2009.
Councillor Harrison asked whether EYFS performance could partly be attributable to there being a greater proportion of temporary teaching staff compared to later years. Councillor Oladapo sought further reasons as to why some EYFS assessments may have been overly cautious.
The Chair queried why performance of FSM and SEN pupils was not included in the performance data for EYFS pupils and the reasons why the National Strategies EFYS team would cease activity this week. In noting that EYFS performance was below the national average overall, the Chair asked what measures were taken to try and improve underachieving pupils. With regard to Key Stage 1, information was requested with regard to statemented and SEN pupils and whether the ‘five outcomes’ measure was still applicable. In acknowledging that no schools were below the floor target at Key Stage 2, the Chair enquired whether there were schools under special measures for any of the school years. The Chair commented on the encouraging progress by some pupils who had risen from below the national average at EYFS level to above it at Key Stages 1 and 2. In respect of Key Stage 3, the Chair enquired whether the removal of national SATS test as statutory for secondary schools may have a negative impact.
Councillor Arnold (Lead Member for Children and Families) was invited to comment. Councillor Arnold welcomed the detailed analysis in the report providing useful information and commented on the encouraging performance overall of pupils in the older years. She stated that early years’ performance was more likely to be hindered by health and socio-economic factors, whilst the expansion of nursery places to two year-old pupils would raise capacity issues. Councillor Arnold felt that the modular approach to teaching was an advantage and enquired whether the changes in national SATs status would affect this method and what were the schools’ reaction to this. She also asked why science subjects were popular A level choices with students.
In reply to the issues raised, Hilary Bell advised that the teachers who had not undertaken EYFS profiling training had been recorded and the School Improvement Service would be visiting schools to make suitable arrangements to ensure these teachers were given the time to attend training. The committee heard that most EYFS teachers were on permanent contracts. However, there was a significant number who came from Australia or New Zealand who may not remain at a school for long as they pursued travel plans which may partly explain why some may not have undertaken EYFS Profile training. With regard to overly cautious EYFS assessments, Members noted that teachers had robustly implemented the EYFS profile and moderation of assessment and in some cases this may have meant some pupils were marked more harshly than would otherwise be the case. In addition, the assessments were complicated to undertake and quite subjective in nature. Hilary Bell advised that FSM and SEN factors were not quite as significant at EYFS level and a breakdown of performance for pupils under these categories had therefore not been included. She explained that a not insignificant proportion of pupils underachieving at EYFS subsequently made up ground at the intervening years and the initial underachievement this may be partly due to some not benefitting from any pre-schooling or needing emotional and social support. Some pupils may be well below national standards at Reception class levels, but it was a measure of their progress that they were able to reach or surpass the national average in subsequent years.
Hilary Bell explained that overall achievement had dropped amongst children of all ethnic backgrounds, including the relatively low achievement levels of Somalian pupils. The School Improvement Service was undertaking an analysis of reasons for inequalities in achievements amongst different ethnic groups and putting in appropriate support measures and providing support to practitioners. A wide range of reasons could be attributed to inequalities in achievement, for example Somalian pupils may have only recently arrived in the country with limited experience of speaking English and with no pre-schooling. CILT, the National Centre for Languages, was also addressing this issue through a project designed to boost literacy standards in schools through a variety of methods including use of ICT.
Faira Ellks commented that the ‘five outcomes’ measure was no longer appearing in documentation. It was confirmed that Lyon Park Junior and Kilburn Park primary schools were subject to special measures to improve performance.
Rik Boxer (Assistant Director – Achievement and Inclusion) advised that the Government’s SEN Green Paper was proposing to continue with the current system with some possible minor changes until 2014, where upon the Education, Health and Care Plan would come into effect. There were no details as yet as to how the plan would impact upon SEN arrangements and various models would be considered.
In respect of Key Stage 3, Fiona Deegan commented that the removal of SATs was not necessarily a negative development as there had always been a level of dispute in respect of performance recorded. The greater flexibility afforded to teachers in respect of assessment was also a benefit in comparison with the more detailed criteria previously. Schools could still continue to use SATs if they so wished and it could still be a useful tool, particularly in respect of maths. The review of the National Curriculum would include a review of the GCSE structure and the Government’s preference was for a linear exam structure. Consultation on this would continue until 14 April and the School Improvement Service had submitted a response and was encouraging Brent schools to do likewise. Fiona Deegan also advised that science ‘A’ levels were popular in Brent as they were highly valued by students and parents and their vocational nature was also seen as a positive aspect.
In respect of ethnicity, Fiona Deegan advised that Afghan pupils were likely to be classified under Asian Other, however classification was determined by the pupils themselves. She indicated that she would be happy to provide any further information on a particular ethnic group.
The Chair thanked the School Improvement Service for the presentation and welcomed the good progress that had been made. She suggested that a press release highlighting this would be beneficial and Councillor Arnold added that this would be used to as part of the campaign to raise the profile of Brent schools.
Supporting documents:
- education-standards-covering-report.doc, item 4. PDF 51 KB
- education-standards-2010-final, item 4. PDF 754 KB