Agenda item

To provide the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee with an update on school attainment, including for Black British Boys of Caribbean Heritage.

Councillor Grahl (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools) introduced the report, which provided a summary of school attainment across the Borough and outlined some of the interventions the Council had taken to assist where results were lower than averages. She felt there were a lot of positives, including an above average attainment for disadvantaged children in the borough. In addition, every Brent school except one had achieved a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating. She highlighted the challenges, such as a plateau in attainment in some areas following the pandemic, including the attainment gap amongst Black British boys of Caribbean heritage, and some results below the national average for those on Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs).

In continuing the introduction, Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children and Young People, Brent Council) highlighted that he was confident Brent was one of the best performing local authority areas in the country in relation to Ofsted ratings, which he attributed to the commitment, quality, and strength of school leadership in the borough, despite some of the challenges being experienced within the school system. He listed some of these pressures as the pandemic, workforce issues, additional need demand, and budget pressures. The current focus was on post-covid recovery, including attendance and promoting attendance. The attendance levels of Brent schools were within the top 10 local authority areas nationally, which he believed was a sign of both parental support and school commitment to engagement. There were plans in place to improve those areas of challenge and he felt the overall position was strong.

The Chair thanked Councillor Grahl and Nigel Chapman for their introduction. Several headteachers from different schools were in attendance at the meeting, and the Chair invited comments from them individually to explain what they were doing in relation to attainment within their own schools.

Georgina Nutton (Headteacher, Preston Park Primary School) explained that the main focus at Preston Park Primary School was on the curriculum, ensuring it was effective, fit for purpose, and relevant for all the children at school. This focus included training for staff on subject knowledge and knowledge cascades to ensure that the way the school taught was delivered in a high quality and purposeful way, personalising the learning within the classroom to ensure every child had access to that learning.

Jayne Jardine (CEO and Executive Headteacher, The Rise Partnership Trust) highlighted that all special schools in Brent were rated as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted except one, which was being supported to improve by the local authority. The Trust’s special schools were offering a highly individualised curriculum for children with complex needs, including providing integrated therapy, with behavioural practitioners working in every classroom to ensure all pupils were able to access the learning. During the pandemic, special schools had remained open as they were offering education to the most vulnerable pupils in Brent, with pupils attending on a full or part time basis. This had enabled a level of continuity for pupils going forward. She concluded by highlighting that special schools were over-subscribed, acknowledging that this was a reflection of the high esteem the local authority held for special schools in Brent.

Judith Enright (Headteacher, Queen’s Park Community School) advised the Committee that Queen’s Park Community School’s focus had also been on having a curriculum that met the needs of all learners. The post-pandemic recovery period had highlighted attendance as a key concern for Brent, but it had been positive that attendance levels were well above national measures. She highlighted some positives within her school such as the full extra-curricular and enrichment programmes that pupils had undertaken, including productions, concerts and work experience. She highlighted that, by secondary school, learners would be looking at ‘ultimate destinations’ and so these extra-curricular activities were essential, as well as information, advice and guidance on future pathways. The school was still sending a high proportion of learners to Russel Group Universities, but there had been disruption to the broader range of pathways such as apprenticeships during the pandemic. She finished her update by congratulating a learner with an EHCP at Queen’s Park Community School who had just achieved four A* grades and an A through the support and joint working across Brent, and four learners who had been accepted into Oxbridge during the Summer.

The Chair thanked headteachers for their updates and invited comments and questions from the Committee, with the following issues raised:

The Committee asked for clarity on why there had been specific focus on Black British boys of Caribbean heritage and whether there had also been specific focus on children of Somali heritage, who had also historically had lower attainment. Nigel Chapman explained that Black British boys of Caribbean heritage had been identified as the most underperforming group in comparison to all other groups, whereas children of Somali heritage, whilst in the past had not progressed as well as all groups, had in recent years made good progress and were now in line with other groups of children in relation to attainment, which was why there was specific focus on that cohort.

In highlighting that the report detailed that lower attainment for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage was a historic issue, the Committee asked why Brent had not moved forward and closed that attainment gap. Jen Haskew (Head of Setting and School Effectiveness, Brent Council) highlighted that the gap had been closing and, had it not been for the disruption in the usual offer caused by covid, then that trajectory would have continued. However, focus and resource had changed to focus on covid delivery and recovery. It had been found that covid had a disproportionate impact for those at risk of lower attainment, due to the need for continuity which was not available during the pandemic. Whilst it was acknowledged that the gap had not continued to close, she felt assured that schools were now in a period showing renewed outcomes as measured by Ofsted, and could now refocus and put resources back into focusing on underperforming groups.

The Committee asked for assurance that there was a school journey mapped out for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage, which was consistent and meaningful from one stage to the next and that was monitored and focused. Judith Enright explained that, in Queen’s Park Community School, the work to close the attainment gap for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage began in September 2016, building on previous projects that had a range of successes. The school had the ‘Aiming High’ project, lead by its Anti-Racism Leader, and the primary starting point of that project had been connection with families and ensuring families were involved in the school experience of their children. That project had been disrupted by the pandemic as there were no face-to-face meetings, trips, visits or shared experiences. Data showed that the gap had been closing in 2019, and any gains made up to 2019 had been set back by the pandemic when the first set of official results were announced in 2022. In terms of how the school knew it was working to significantly address the gap now that schools were business as usual, the Committee heard that the school’s Anti-Racism Leader had been delivering a programme of school interventions and monitoring progress there, holding staff to account, and had also been engaging with families such as through a recent trip to see Black Panther with families from the ‘Aiming High’ cohort. As a result of the ‘Aiming High’ project, one of the first students who took part in that programme had now started Cambridge University, and she had came back to speak to students about her journey, as a mantra for the school was that ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’. On top of that, Queen’s Park Community School was working on its anti-racism curriculum, racial literacy and training for staff. Judith Enright hoped it would be a Brent-wide approach for staff to undertake racial literacy training, as it was not part of initial teacher training.

It was highlighted that section 10.5 of the report stated that the attainment gap for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage was already evident in early years, in comparison to the 1970s and 1980s where Black boys were ahead of their peers when they got to school and that drop in attainment had happened at age 11. This meant teachers were supporting children who were already behind in attainment by the time they reached school. Councillor Grahl acknowledged that was the case, and there were various strategies used by schools to support pupils already underachieving. From a local authority perspective, the Council were ensuring that they were providing young people with the best start in life. Increasing research showed that school attainment was not just about what happened at school but a multitude of other factors such as quality of housing, poverty and mental health. She pointed to the free school meals provision that was due to start in September, the Resident Support Fund, and the building of council housing as work the Council were doing to build a safety net for young people to get the best start in life.

The Committee highlighted that the report referred to ‘disadvantaged’ pupils, and asked what the definition of ‘disadvantaged’ was in the context of the report. Shirley Parks (Director Safeguarding, Partnerships and Strategy, Brent Council) explained that the categories of data within the report referring to disadvantaged pupils were national categories of data used as a deprivation indicator by the DfE, based on children eligible for pupil premium. It was explained that those pupils who were eligible for free school meals previously now attracted additional funding in the school’s budget through pupil premium, as it was recognised they may have wider needs than some other children. That additional funding was for schools to deploy, targeted at supporting those particular children, and there was a requirement for schools to evidence how they were putting that support in place and using that funding for those children.

In considering how schools used their pupil premium, the Chair invited headteachers present to explain what support they put in place with that additional funding. Georgina Nutton explained that a major part of implementing that support in Preston Park Primary School was to have a lower teacher to pupil ratio in the classroom, so that those pupils had more interaction with their teacher. The pupil premium also went towards uniform support and enrichment activities, for example supplemented school trips. Within Preston Park Primary School, pupils eligible for pupil premium could learn a musical instrument for free and receive tuition for phonics daily for 10 minutes to close that gap early.

In secondary school, Judith Enright explained that the same approach to using pupil premium funding would apply. Any Brent school was required to have their pupil premium statement on their website to show how that specific school was using that funding to close the gap. As pupils moved from primary to secondary school, the secondary school gathered lots of information, including SAT results, speaking to the year 6 team, and doing their own assessments of reading age, in order to understand the needs of each child. Queen’s Park Community School offered literacy and numeracy interventions in small groups and some children may be targeted for urgent intervention to improve reading age, as pupils quickly needed a reading age that mirrored their chronological age at secondary school level. The pupil premium in Queen’s Park Community School was also used to support music lessons, trips and visits, and also curriculum entitlement such as art and food technology materials. In addition, Queen’s Park Community School had commissioned an intervention recommended by Brent Inclusion called West London Zone, who worked in a holistic way with 30 identified children and their families for 2 years.

In relation to children diagnosed with a learning disability, the Committee asked if there was any data for that, such as timings for diagnosis. Sharon Buckby (Head of Inclusion and Brent Virtual School, Brent Council) explained that diagnosis for neurodiversity, predominantly Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Dyslexia, Dyspraxia or Tourettes, was usually around the ages of 3-4 years old in Brent. A significant number of children diagnosed under the age of 5 with ASD then moved on to an EHCP. For the calendar year, 43% had a diagnosis of ASD and an EHCP by the age of 4. 63% of all under 7-year-olds with an EHCP were diagnosed with ASD. In relation to ethnicity data for those with a learning disability, Sharon Buckby explained that she had only recently received that data and would want to analyse it first before sharing wider.

Continuing to discuss diagnosis timings, the Committee queried if it was possible that disabilities were being missed by settings which were then having to be picked up higher in the pathway and individuals subsequently receiving a late diagnosis. Sharon Buckby acknowledged that there would be older young people now who may not have been able to access early intervention and support through the system when they were younger because the system was not as it was now. That would mean there would be greater numbers of neurodiversity identified at University or work now than had been previously. The system in Brent now recognised and diagnosed earlier than every part of the country and there was a much higher rate in Brent compared to nationally and there was a need to understand why that was the case.

The Committee highlighted that there was a lot of data in the report, and some of that data showed variation such as; for some categories girls were performing better than boys; and SEND pupils were outperforming national averages in some categories but below national averages in others. The Committee felt it would be helpful for the Committee to understand why there were disparities in attainment and what strategies were being implemented to address them moving forward included in future reports. Particularly in relation to the data for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage, Shirley Parks explained that the data was not in the public domain but could be provided to the Committee separately.

It was highlighted that, now that traditional exams had returned, the grades for Key Stage 4 students had reduced in comparison to their teacher marked grades. Committee members asked what could be done to level up those students. Judith Enright explained that grades in 2020-21 were differently applied based on teacher judgement, and teachers had been required to provide evidence on the grades they were giving. In 2020, grades had been given based on a ranked order of how well students did, based on all the information teachers had available. In 2021, there was a fuller picture of learning through teacher assessment, and teachers gave grades to Black British boys of Caribbean heritage that were higher across schools than they subsequently achieved in sitting the traditional GCSE exams in 2022. This was being discussed at Judith’s school as to the reasons for this, because, through teacher assessed grades, there had been a closing of the attainment gap.

The Committee highlighted that the report referred to schools receiving support and challenge from the local authority to rapidly improve, and queried what specifically that challenge looked like. Jen Haskew explained that a number of officers within her team worked directly with schools, school leaders and governors to represent the local authority around support and challenge. During these directive visits with headteachers, her team would talk about the specific data for that particular school. That may involve speaking to school leaders about particular groups of children or individual children who may not be achieving as well as their peers, and they discussed what leaders were doing to interject and improve outcomes for those pupils. There was also Rapid Improvement Groups where, if a particular school had been identified or had self-identified, they received resources from the local authority and a group convened with school leaders, governors and the local authority to address specific areas that needed to improve rapidly. This could be in a number of areas, such as achievement, finance or attendance. One particular school had been supported by a Rapid Improvement Group where the areas for improvement had been identified by Ofsted. Some of the support offered to that school to improve had been around curriculum developments to ensure it was fit for purpose for the pupils attending that school, strengthening governance, and supporting recruitment to ensure enthusiastic and well qualified staff were being recruited. Jen Haskew felt confident that when the school was reinspected the outcome would be different and the rating would be improved. Of the other 2 schools referenced in the report that had been supported by Rapid Improvement Groups, both of those had seen positive outcomes as judged by Ofsted.

The Committee asked about parent and carer engagement. Georgina Nutton highlighted that, as schools, one thing they had done particularly well pre-covid with Black British boys of Caribbean heritage had been to work in partnership with families, having the child’s voice heard, and giving children mentors and coaches. Covid had been disruptive to that process, but schools were building on that good practice and putting it back in to the system, working hard to close the gap and help every child succeed and have a great first start to education.

The Committee queried whether the Ofsted inspection lens was too narrow a focus to measure how schools were approaching attainment. Jayne Jardine explained that she worked as a Lead Ofsted Inspector, and when Ofsted inspected schools they looked at the quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, personal development, safeguarding in its widest sense, and leadership and management. Through that, there was a particular focus on a curriculum that prepared pupils for outcomes at each key stage. In addition, inspectors asked for parents, staff and pupil views to gather a broad range of perspectives, however, the window of time available to gather that feedback was short. This meant some schools had a lot of responses whereas others got very few.

The Chair thanked those present for their contributions and drew the item to a close. He invited the Committee to make recommendations, with the following RESOLVED:

i)              To recommend that future reports to the Committee about the attainment of Black British boys of Caribbean heritage were structured around the journey of the child. In practice, this would consist of outlining educational experiences and outcomes from early years to the end of secondary school.

ii)             To recommend that future reports to the Committee on the issue of attainment include a wider narrative on the reasons for historically lower attainment for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage, to give the Committee a sense of the bigger picture.

iii)           To recommend that future reports include more information on the underlying issues that contribute to lower attainment at school.

In addition to the recommendations, a number of information requests were raised throughout the discussion, recorded as follows:

i)              That the Committee receives a breakdown of ethnicity data for children diagnosed with neurodiversity in Brent.

ii)             That the Committee receives a breakdown of attainment data for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage, including how it has changed since 2019.

iii)           That the Committee receives information on how the Children and Young People’s directorate is prioritising attainment for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage and how it is working with other departments to tackle underlying issues that contribute to lower attainment for Black British boys of Caribbean heritage.