Agenda item

The Head of Education had been in post since 1^st September 2016. The report presented the overall picture; SBC was seeking greater detail in the information. Overall, the picture was positive although Early Years and Foundation Stage was a more mixed situation. Primary schools were responding well to the new assessment system, whilst secondary schools were now subject to new measures of success (Progress 8 and Attainment 8).

Progress in phonics had been positive. At Key Stage 1, achievement was above average although science remained a concern. Key Stage 2 results had seen writing and mathematics achieve above average results, but reading was below average. SBC was investigating potential strategies to remedy this. Results for SEND children would be obtained on a school-by-school basis. Overall, in terms of ethnicity white British and white other children were now behind other groupings in Key Stage 2. This would also require analysis and action.

For students in receipt of the Pupil Premium, a gap remained on reading and mathematics although performance was better in writing. This would also be investigated, although it did mirror national trends rather than being unique to Slough.

Given its emphasis on 8 subjects (rather than the former 5 GCSE grades at A* - C), the bar for measuring secondary schools’ performance was now more demanding. It also provided a more complex narrative on performance. The new curriculum for reading was also subject to new standards, which may require a period of a couple of years to become embedded and stabilise.

The Panel raised the following points in discussion:

·  A Progress 8 score of -0.5 or below for secondary schools would trigger an Ofsted inspection.

·  The use of Pupil Premium payments had to be published by each school on their website.

·  There had been a major change in emphasis in terms of the focus of improvement efforts. In particular, universalism (e.g. inclusion of vulnerable groups) was being stressed. The picture in Slough secondary schools was positive, and whilst the situation in primary schools was less clear it was now clearly on their agendas.

·  One method of boosting performance amongst groups with lower attainment would be through identifying schools which had high levels of achievement with these groups. They could then share support on these matters; whilst SBC did not directly control academies, there was shared interest in student performance. Areas such as culture, aspirations, learning styles and language acquisition would be probed, as well as working with families  to identify social issues (e.g. housing, social care) which may play a role. The Teaching School Alliance may also be involved if appropriate, whilst some efforts to improve parent engagement within communities had already proved beneficial.

·  The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) had recently found the United Kingdom to be lagging behind other comparable countries. The role of this in Slough’s levels of achievement would also be included in any consideration of trends.

·  SBC would meet with the Regional Schools Commissioner 3 times a year. The Commissioner’s relationship with the School Office Board was also evolving and would be central in future improvement efforts.

·  Langley Hall Academy was using SBC as an adviser in its efforts to improve. At present, there were monthly visits which had been taking place since May 2016.

·  SBC would review all SEND placements; SCST was also monitoring the situation.

Resolved: that the report be noted.