Agenda item

School Performance Working Group - Key Stage 4 Disadvantaged and Looked after Children

(To receive a report from Martin Smith, Children's Services Manager – School Standards, and Kieran Barnes, Head of Virtual School (Looked After Children), which summarises the work of the Key Stage 4 School Performance Working Group)

Minutes:

The Committee received a report which summarised the work of the Key Stage 4 School Performance Working Group and provided an overview of the effective practices currently operating in Lincolnshire; an overview of effective practices operating beyond Lincolnshire and provided recommendations to further promote and champion improved educational outcomes for children living with disadvantage and Looked After Children at Key Stage 4.

 

It was reported that the School Performance Working Group was established in June 2016 to explore current practice and potential mechanisms for further improving the education outcomes for children experiencing disadvantage.  In September 2016 the focus was extended to include Looked After Children interventions.   The Working Group included Councillors D Brailsford, Mrs J Brockway, S R Dodds, J D Hough, Mrs H N J Powell and Mrs L A Rollings.

 

Members were provided with the opportunity to comment and ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was commented that the group had worked very well, and there was some good practice in Lincolnshire.  There was a feeling from head teachers that the system which was in operation in the county was exciting and worth continuing to develop.

·         It was queried whether the authority could look at some concept of innovation and explore destinations and outcomes for young people post 16 – the current system focused on educational achievements at 16 years and this was not the time that all children excelled and achieved their potential. 

·         There was an expectation that young people would be able to re-sit maths and English exams at college if they didn't achieve a C grade or above.

·         It was suggested that some case studies should have been included in the report.

·         There was a need to remember the emotional needs of children as well as the academic side.

·         It was commented that the report did not really mention the selective system. 

·         A lot of disadvantaged children were in a situation where they had to travel to college, possibly to somewhere they might not have been to before and travel for some communities was a challenge.

·         The challenges of narrowing the attainment gap were compounded in schools which had high numbers of disadvantaged children.  Some great work had been done with closing the gap, but there was a need to ensure that staff from those schools where performance was poorest attended the conferences.  As an authority, it was suggested that there was a need to engage with these schools.  It was agreed that Recommendation 4 should be strengthened to reflect these concerns.

·         It was commented that there was a need to get children reading from a young age.

·         It was reported that validated data for Key Stage 4 had been released and it showed that the number of pupils eligible for free school meals in London had reduced from 28% to 17%.

·         It was suggested that more work needed to be done at the point that a child was identified as disadvantaged, but there was also a need for innovative ideas, to give a child the taste of success.  Waiting until they reached 16 was often too late.  Whilst these concerns were acknowledged, members were reminded that the scope of the working group was Key Stage 4.

·         It was also commented that the rigorous testing of children at a young age was a backwards move.  The monitoring required by Ofsted was also detrimental as staff were spending time filling in forms rather than focusing on play and development.  It was noted that in Scandinavian countries, monitoring started at age 7.  It was noted that children developed in different stages and in different ways.

·         It was thought that there was a lot more that schools could be doing to support Looked After Children.  If a child had challenging behaviour, one of the reasons was likely due to them being labelled a failure.

·         It was suggested that there was a need for more resources in children's centres, as if a child was not achieving a good level of development at 5 years old, it could be difficult for them to catch up.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That the comments made in relation to the report be noted.

2.    That the 13 recommendations in the report be agreed for further work to promote the outcomes for all pupils including those experiencing disadvantage and Looked After Children at Key Stage 4, subject to the wording for recommendation 4 being amended to reflect the concerns about teacher attendance.

Supporting documents:

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: