Agenda item
Key Stage 5 Attainment and Key Stage 5 Destinations
This report comments on education standards achieved by young people in Brent at Key Stage 5 at the end of the academic year 2010/11.
Minutes:
Rik Boxer (Assistant Director, Achievement and Inclusion) advised that the several reports regarding education attainment submitted to recent meetings of the committee and the current meeting provided a comprehensive and detailed overview of this subject. Further information on London and national averages for education attainment, as had been requested previously by the committee, was tabled for members’ information.
John Galligan (Strategic Lead for 14 – 19 Education and Training) presented the report on the education standards achieved in Brent at Key Stage 5 (KS5) for the academic year 2010/11. There were five key indicators used to measure education attainment at KS5. These included attainment at Level 2 and Level 3 by age 19 and A Level point score per pupil and per entry. There had been sustained improvement in the overall attainment of Brent young people at KS5 over the past five years and Brent had remained above the London and national averages for all key indicators. Furthermore, the attainment gap between those in receipt of free school meals (FSM) and other Brent pupils had continued to narrow.
With regard to the destinations of pupils at the end of KS4, John Galligan highlighted that in 2011, only 1% of Brent pupils in 2011 had left education to start training programmes and enter employment. The National Apprenticeship Service had run several initiatives to increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities available to young people and it was anticipated that this might increase the number of students choosing this option in the future. In contrast, 94% of Brent pupils had continued in education at KS5; this compared to a London average of 92% and a national average of 88%. Members’ attention was drawn to the table provided at paragraph 3.7 of the report which set out the types of courses started by pupils at the end of KS4. Whilst there had been a decline in the proportion of pupils starting Level 3 courses at the age of 16 between 2008 and 2011, there had been a rise in the proportion starting Level 1 and Level 2 courses. John Galligan advised that this reflected the provision of better advice and guidance to Brent pupils. In particular, pupils who needed to address skills gaps prior to engaging in a Level 3 course were choosing to do so via Level 1 and Level 2 courses. As a consequence, those engaging in Level 3 courses were better prepared and the proportion of students successfully completing these courses had increased.
John Galligan explained that the provision of advice and guidance formed one of the key priorities of the 14-19 partnership, along with success rates at Year 12 and retention into Year 13. A further priority of the Partnership was to narrow the gap between the Brent average and the FSM cohort and pupils of Black Caribbean, Somali or White British ethnicity. With reference to the White British ethnic group, John Galligan explained that a higher proportion of young people from this ethnic background were becoming unemployed at age 16 and were over-represented in the group of those not in education, employment or training (NEET). Analysis of destinations for these groups demonstrated that the proportion of Black Caribbean and white British groups continuing in education was lower than the Brent average. In support of these priorities, data analysis sessions were being offered to schools to identify areas for improvement. These analyses sought to explore how representative the sixth form cohort was of a whole school community and to identify performance by ethnicity, gender, prior attainment and whether a child was in receipt of FSM.
In the subsequent discussion, the committee raised several queries. With reference to paragraph 3.7 of the report, Councillor Pavey sought further details regarding the ‘other courses’ category included in the table detailing the type of courses started at age 16 by Brent pupils. Councillor Pavey further queried how many of those starting courses from this category went on to take A Levels. Councillor Choudhary queried how the data was gathered with respect to the FSM cohort and those categorised as New Arrivals. With reference to the target to engage all young people in education or employment with training by the age of 17 by September 2013, Councillor Choudhary sought further details of how this would be achieved. Similarly, Ms Elsie Points queried why there was a low take up of Apprenticeship programmes.
In response to the committee’s queries, John Galligan advised that the other courses category mainly included vocational courses which lead to Level 2 or low Level 3 qualifications. A full breakdown of these courses would be provided to the committee. Details of the numbers of those progressing to A Level courses could not be provided yet as the academic year was not yet complete. With regard to the FSM cohort and New Arrivals, this data was gathered via the schools and college census, which required schools and colleges to return data on each pupil. Pupils were considered to be New Arrivals if they had come to Brent from any other country outside of the UK. Turning to the query regarding the NEETS target, John Galligan advised that at present 2.2% of young people in Brent were not engaged in education or employment with training. Targeted and intensive support would be provided to specific young people to ensure that the opportunities that did exist were taken up. Councillor Arnold advised that the council was also working with local employers to encourage the development of more apprenticeship opportunities within the area and noted that the council offered some apprenticeship positions which were reserved for Looked After Children. John Galligan added that all London local authorities had pledged to include within their procurement processes the expectation that a business provide apprenticeship positions.
Councillor Arnold sought clarification as to whether Academies formed part of the 14 – 19 Partnership and was advised that they were. John Galligan explained that the local authority had a statutory responsibility to engage all young people in education or employment with training and therefore worked with all providers to meet this.
RESOLVED
i. That the continuing improvements in education standards at Key Stage 5 be noted
ii. That the contribution made by Brent providers, Brent 14-19 Partnership, Services to Schools and Brent Connexions be noted.
Supporting documents: