Agenda item

The Sub-Committee will consider a report summarising the 2015 performance of Havering primary and secondary school pupils in key stage assessments, tests and examinations, and the performance of schools in their most recent Ofsted inspections.

The Quality Assurance Manager gave an overview of the main features of the School Standards Report 2015. One Havering Primary Academy was below the Department for Education (DfE) floor standard and one Secondary in the borough was not reaching the national meridian.

It was noted that with the exception of London Borough of Bexley, Havering’s statistical neighbours were from areas outside of London. Havering was also the only London borough that had decreasing wealth and growing deprivation among its cohort of pupils.

Havering had improved performance at the Early Years Foundation stage compared to the two previous years but performance nationally had also risen on this measure.

At Key Stage One, Havering had improved performance on the phonics and spelling tests by 2%. Havering was ranked second among its statistical neighbours which was a positive result. Performance had also improved for Key Stage One tests in reading, writing and maths.

Results at Key Stage Two had been excellent with attainment reaching the target level 4+ in each of reading, writing and maths. Havering was ranked seventh nationally on this measure. Results for grammar, spelling and punctuation at this stage had also improved with Havering now ranked 10^th nationally.

Progress from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 had improved slightly although it was noted that Havering had high scores on this measure and was ranked top among its statistical neighbours.

Following changes in the criteria from 2013-14, attainment at Key Stage 4 had dropped by some 3% although lower levels had also been seen across London and nationally. Measures of progress at this stage had seen Havering drop from 35^th to 61^st in terms of national ranking. It was clarified that progress was measured from year 6 to year 11 and that pupils who moved into the borough were also counted for this measure. Progress in maths for Havering had fallen by 3% and meant Havering was now ranked 29^th of 31 London boroughs. New measures would be introduced for this area from summer 2016.

The attainment gap encountered by disadvantaged children had now reduced in Havering and the school performance of children entitled to free school meals was in line with the national average. Officers added that they encouraged parents to register children for free school meals where appropriate as this allowed the receipt of pupil premium funding.

Performance at Key Stage 5 (post 16) had been broadly static. Any fall may have been due to pupils undertaking fewer qualifications but this would allow studies to be more focussed towards obtaining jobs or university places.

OFSTED grading for early years providers had exceeded targets and Havering was now above the national average. This was due to more robust monitoring of early years settings and providers. On the Good and Better Schools ratings however, Havering was on a downward trajectory and was now ranked 147^th of 152 Local Authorities nationally. The reasons for this were unclear and officers added that good outcomes for Havering primaries were often not reflected in OFSTED inspections. Three schools had been downgraded by OFSTED to ‘requires improvement’ level and other schools rated as ‘good’ were first inspections and so could not improve the overall ranking for Havering. Havering was also ranked near the bottom for the proportion of schools graded Good or Better.

Some 37% of Havering schools were listed as priority schools for the Local Authority (LA) although it was pointed out that this was because the Local Authority was generally risk averse in this area. The LA was trying to manage OFSTED inspections better and recent inspections of primaries had seen better outcomes. There remained however problems with inspection of secondary schools. It was clarified that Academies were not the responsibility of the LA and it was suggested that the Regional Schools Commissioner could be invited to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee to discuss Academy performance in Havering. Officers added that the Leader of the Council had also expressed concern regarding the performance of secondary Academies.

It was noted that OFSTED criteria had changed with three different frameworks having been used in recent years. This was not however an excuse for poor performance.

Performance data for each school was also available and officers could provide a link to where this could be accessed. There were plans to improve progress from Key Stages Two to Four but it was often very difficult for the Council to get into low progress schools as these were mainly Academies.

All OFSTED reports for Havering schools over the last four years had been analysed but there were no obvious reasons for the low OFSTED appraisals. Officers therefore felt that leaders and managers in schools had not been adequately prepared for OFSTED inspections. Preparation for OFSTED inspections was now being targeted. Officers would supply to each meeting of the Sub-Committee a short written update on the outcomes of recent OFSTED inspections. The schedule and frequency of OFSTED inspections was the responsibility of OFSTED and outside of the LA’s control.

Officers felt that some heads in Havering needed to sell their schools to OFSTED better. There was however no discernible pattern in the inspection experiences of different head teachers.

New comparators would be developed by the Government as part of the new appraisal system and it was anticipated that the Council would follow these. Further Education Colleges were not directly the responsibility of the Council but were also included in the published national figures.

The Sub-Committee NOTED the report and thanked officers for their compiling of the information.