Agenda item

Members were presented with a report that outlined performance across a range of educational indicators which either formed part of or contributed to the performance tables published by the Department for Education.  The report covered areas below:

• Attainment and achievement
• Exclusions
• Attendance
• Ofsted judgements

It was added that the data was provisional and a final release from the DfE was being waited on. 

Members were informed that the Council had transformed its own school improvement functions and relationship with the Teaching Schools Alliance that provided step monitoring.  Regarding the Teaching Schools Alliance, Members were informed that they had been challenged to provide likewise with those schools under its own authority.  It was added that letters had been sent out to schools of concern and to academies as part of a whole system approach.  It was commented that there should be more of a focus on Children in Care

Children and Young People (CYP) Plan – It was explained that the Children and Young People Plan had accountability for all outcomes including those for health which are delegated from the Health and Wellbeing Board.  As discussed in the previous item, those outcomes for social care are delivered on our behalf through the Trust.  Academies are commissioned through the Secretary of State and the Department for Education, through funding agreements.  In spite of this relationship, the authority is still held to account in respect of their outcomes. Reference was made to the Children and Young People Plan and it was questioned how the authority could help objectives when children aged 8 to 11 were in academies and there was an increasing number of primary school becoming academies.

Attendance/Absenteeism - In respect of attendance, it was noted that absenteeism in Doncaster was above the national average and Members were informed that a review was being undertaken early September.  It was explained that this would look at the current levels of absenteeism and recommendations would be made as to how this could be addressed. It was reported that this review would be implemented alongside the Behaviour Review during the course of the 2017/18 school year.  It was recognised that some academies had adopted a zero tolerance policy and excluded pupils that had a legal entitlement to education.   This had resulted in an increase in managed moves to other schools or placements in Learning Centres or the Pupil Referral Unit which were now at full capacity.  It was felt that this was neither desirable, nor sustainable, hence the review.  Members were informed that a dialogue had been convened with secondary heads to firstly, engage with the “here and now” challenge, and secondly, consider the strategic approach to be taken to reform the  whole behaviour support and alternative education system.

Behaviour Inclusion Programme - Members were reminded that the Panel considered the Behaviour Inclusion Programme Overview, which was being conducted over three phases at its last meeting.  Members had been informed that there had been a number of recommendations made which would be implemented in two phases.  Members were told that with academies in challenging circumstances, the Council had provided a very supportive role to help them manage behaviour better.  Members were informed that this could be updated at a future meeting.

It was recognised that historically poor attendance and behaviour had not been given enough priority and therefore, concern was raised that a number of schools had been allowed to deteriorate to this level over time.  It was explained that in the previous academic year, in respect of school inspections there had been a catch-up effect and that more schools had been inspected. This has therefore skewed the proportion of schools in the ‘requires improvement’ grade.  It was added that more schools were losing their good grading which was part of a general national trend due to an increase in the standards and thresholds introduced in the recent inspection framework (compared to the previous one).  It was also felt that some schools were under prepared to meet safeguarding expectations as part of the new framework which was also a contributory factor, even though guidance and support had been issued to all schools.  It was responded that further work was being undertaken with Partners in Learning.  Members were assured that the Council was focused on building strong relationships with academies in order to influence and support.

Concerns were raised that it was very expensive for schools to pay into Partners in Learning.  It was explained that the Schools Forum had made a decision to fund membership for all schools and added that perhaps this needs to be communicated more effectively.  In respect it’s Panel, Members were informed that there was a need for it to be broadened with more Head Teachers and for the organisation to work more collectively with the authority and schools.

There was a conversation about changes to the curriculum and assessment system.  Members queried how moderation was undertaken and how children were responding to undertaking tests and assessments.  Members were informed that children hadn’t responded well to tests and work was being done to address this. It was noted that in the two previous years, the Local Authority had led improvement campaigns in writing and reading, both of which resulted in a positive impact on results.  It was commented that children at Key Stage 2 had undertaken tests for many years.

Concern was raised around Recommendation 5 of the report “The transformational nature of school improvement support and services within Doncaster, across the region and nationally.” It was suggested that this should instead read as ‘The changing nature of school improvement support and services within Doncaster, across the region and nationally’.

RESOLVED that the Panel note the recommendations outlined in the report.