Agenda item
Education Standards in Brent 2013
This report comments on the standards achieved in Brent schools in 2013.
Minutes:
Rebecca Matthews (Interim Head of School Improvement) presented a report to the committee on education standards achieved in Brent schools for 2012/13 academic year. The report provided a snapshot of the Ofsted ratings of Brent’s schools as at November 2013 and outlined the national context for the changing relationship between local authorities and schools in relation to school improvement. It was highlighted that a new Ofsted inspection framework had been introduced at the start of the 2013/14. Changes to the criteria for ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ ratings meant that schools which currently held those ratings could be vulnerable at re-inspection. 80 percent of Brent’s secondary schools were rated good or outstanding, against 87 percent in London and 72 percent nationally. Similarly 78 percent of Primary schools in Brent held these ratings compared to 85 percent in London and 78 percent nationally. Enhanced support was provided to those schools which were judged to be in special measures, requiring improvement or were considered to have fragile ratings, to ensure that all schools progressed towards good or outstanding.
Rebecca Matthews drew Members’ attention to the report attached as Appendix A, which detailed attainment of key measures at Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and Key Stages 1, 2, and 4 by Brent pupils against London and National averages. Comparable data was also provided for academic years 2010/11 and 2011/12 and a further breakdown of achievement by ethnicity and for those children qualifying for the Pupil Premium was set out for the committee’s information. It was explained that the Pupil Premium was additional funding provided to schools to address underlying inequalities between children eligible for free school meals (FSM) and their peers.
In outlining the key trends evident in the report, Rebecca Matthews highlighted that standards in Brent Schools at EYFS had shown improvement and the equality gap was closing. There was an improving three year trend at KS1, with schools in the borough meeting national averages. Progress at KS2 was considered to be less secure; whilst assessment measures had changed making direct comparison difficult, the borough’s schools were falling behind national and London averages. Results at KS4 had reversed the decline marked in the previous year and now exceeded the national average. The breakdown of attainment by ethnicity reported results for the three main ethnic groups represented in Brent; Black Caribbean, Somali and White Other. Members were advised that as the cohorts were small, the figures provided should be treated with some caution; however there was an improving picture at KS1 with Brent pupils achieving in line and often better than national comparisons. At KS2 pupils of the three main ethnic groups performed better than the Brent averages. Whilst progress had been made at KS4, attainment for the three groups was still less than national comparisons. Members were further advised that achievement for children eligible for the Pupil Premium was positive, with a general reduction in the gap between this group and their peers and higher standards achieved against most measures.
In concluding the presentation, Rebecca Matthews detailed the actions being taken to support and challenge Brent’s schools to improve. These actions included the development of a new Brent School Improvement Core Offer, the rationalisation of a range of EYFS projects to enhance focus on raising standards, training and support for governing bodies, and working with the Brent Schools Partnership to develop a programme of professional development aimed at addressing areas of weaknesses.
Several queries were raised by members during the subsequent discussion. The committee sought further information regarding the choice to limit the breakdown of attainment by ethnicity to the three largest ethnic groups represented in Brent. It was commented that there were some significant demographic differences between Brent’s Schools. Members queried the analysis of the figures provided regarding Ofsted ratings, noting a disparity between the conclusions drawn for secondary schools and those regarding primary schools. Similarly, further explanation was requested regarding the stated difficulty in making comparisons with London and National figures for nurseries, special schools and pupil referral units. Members also queried whether the School Improvement Team worked with PVI sector nurseries. Additional details were sought on the Education Commission established by the council. Officers were asked to expand on the planned action to rationalise EYFS projects and it was queried whether the School Improvement Team formed part of the Brent Schools Partnership.
Addressing the issues raised, Rebecca Matthews explained that figures could be provided for other ethnic groups represented in Brent or other schools such as nurseries or PRUs; however it was noted that any conclusions drawn from small data cohorts could not be considered reliable. It was subsequently agreed that details of population sizes would be provided to members. Sara Williams added that the report had sought to focus on areas of underachievement. It was acknowledged that schools did have different demographics but the focus of the School Improvement Team was to support the sharing of best practice, so that those doing well at addressing areas of inequality could help other schools achieve the same success. With regard to the analysis provided of the Ofsted ratings of Brent’s Schools, Rebecca Matthews advised that the size of the cohort differed for Secondary and Primary Schools. As a consequence, the individual results impacted the overall average to a greater or lesser extent depending on school sector; this therefore affected the conclusions drawn. It was emphasised that the local authority was not dependent on the cooperation of schools in gathering data on academic attainment as it was all available in the public domain.
The committee was advised that the School Improvement Team did not work with the PVI nursery sector, instead this fell within the remit of a separate team funded via the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Rebecca Matthews informed the committee that a variety of EYFS projects had been undertaken by the Schools Improvement Team but these had since been rationalised and redesigned to ensure a clear focus on raising standards. It was considered that managing fewer projects would allow clearer dissemination of the project outcomes. The Schools Improvement Team did not form part of the Brent Schools Partnership; however, it did work closely with the partnership and currently attended its management meetings. Sara Williams outlined the aims of the Education Commission which had been established by the Executive in early 2013, following similar actions by a number of other local authorities. The Education Commission would enable the council to take a step back, examine education in the borough and consider how the local authority could fulfil its role in the changing landscape of the education sector. Christine Gilbert (Interim Chief Executive Brent Council) was leading on the initiative and was supported by colleagues including Professor Toby Greaney (Institute of Education, University College London), Gerard Kelly (Editor of the Times Educational Supplement) and Robert Hill (government policy adviser and consultant on education and school issues). The Education Commission would produce a report setting out its recommendations which would then be explored by council officers.
The committee expressed its disappointment that the report did not include a section on the child poverty implications. A request was made that a copy of the Child Poverty Strategy be provided to members. Members asked that the report of the Education Commission also be submitted for the committee’s consideration, alongside information on work currently being undertaken regarding social mobility. A further request was made for a short report on the training provided by the school improvement team.
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents: