Agenda item

Members received a report and presentation which provided an overview of education outcomes in the Slough Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), Key Stage 2 (KS2), Key Stage 4 (KS4) and Key Stage 5 (KS5). In considering patterns of achievement for schools and groups of pupils, there would be improved strategic planning.

Following the presentation by the Service Lead, School Effectiveness, Members asked questions and sought clarification on a number of issues which were duly responded to including:

·  the impact of Academies on the figures. Members requested clarification on this aspect; the officer responded that the LA does not examine differences in outcomes between academies and maintained schools

·  whether any adjustments had made to address the impact on ‘white disadvantaged girls’, the group that appeared to be most affected. The officer advised that the School Improvement Board considered the data and set the priorities. The gaps between ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘not disadvantaged’ were quite small in Slough and the fluctuation in figures could be explained by the small cohort. A report outlining the initiatives in relation to ‘disadvantaged white British students’ was requested. The officer responded that the council does not provide school improvement support in this context and it is for schools to decide their own priorities. However some local initiatives such as the Local School Improvement Fund meant that some groups of schools have been working together to work on initiatives that would impact on this cohort.

·  The Progress 8 scores at both selective and non-selective schools were above the national average and the outcomes at KS4 were positive.

·  Clarification on EHCP was requested together with details on the number and the number of challenges to the plans received. Members requested that a report on this issue be submitted to a future meeting of the Panel;

·  An explanation of the 30% reduction in performance of the ‘Asian Pakistani’ cohort from KS2 to KS4 was sought and Members were advised that the assessment  measures at each key stage were completely different and could not be compared and also the figures referred to were in the same year. It was therefore not accurate to state that there is 30% reduction in outcomes for the Asian Pakistani cohort between KS2 and KS4. The progress 8 performance measure is  more appropriate indicator of progress over time,  but even there caution is required as the cohort at  KS2 would not be the same cohort at KS4. The performance of this group was, however, above the national average at KS2 and KS4

·  It was acknowledged that Headteachers aimed to ensure that all pupils made progress over time.

In response to a question in relation to Wrexham School and the further decline of the Progress 8 score, the officer advised that whilst he could not discuss individual schools, this school had recently been judged as ‘Good’ by Ofsted and worked well with the local authority. Broad reasons may be due to a change in methodology this year from previous years, and because some schools did not enter children for all Progress 8 subjects;

·  Consideration be given as to whether a Part II update may be required in the future if there were concerns in relation to a particular school.

The officer reported that the local authority has a good relationship with schools. This assisted in providing better support as facilitators in the school system.

Resolved:That the report be noted.