Agenda item

The Acting Assistant Director for Education Services briefed the Sub-Committee on the key areas of performance in each of the key stages of education statistics as at 31 October 2017. 

The report detailed that in the Early Years Foundation Stage (pupils aged 5), children in Havering had a strong start in their education, with the percentage of children improving and reaching a Good Level of Development (GLD) in the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile exceeding the number found nationally again in 2017.  Havering ranked 52/152 of all local authorities, and 6th amongst our statistical neighbours.  The EYFS measure has been unchanged since 2013 during which Havering attainment had improved consistently.

The Key Stage 1 performance indicated that pupils performed well in their Reading, Writing and Mathematics assessments.  Havering had improved consistently and was in the second quartile across all subjects, and fifth amongst statistical neighbours.  However, the ranking dropped against London due to a faster improvement rate.                         

The data for Key Stage 2 for pupils aged 11 attainments in Reading, Writing, Mathematics and English spelling, punctuation and grammar tests indicated an excellent performance.

Alongside the attainment of pupils, the government also measures the progress they have made from their starting point (their last statutory assessment in the previous Key Stage).  Havering has been steadily improving the progress pupils make through those years and our ranking accordingly. 

In 2016 the rating was calculated entirely differently and was expressed as a point score above or below the calculation of the cumulative expected progress of the cohort (the national average will always be represented as 0.0).

The figure for 2017 were not available as yet for comparators on the measure,but Havering’s scores were positive, which indicated added value as pupils move through primary education.  The Sub-Committee was informed that it was likely that with the increased progress scores the rankings would be affected positively.

At GCSE level Key Stage 4 (students aged 16), with the introduction of Attainment 8 and Progress 8, the changes to the calculation recorded an headline drop in figures  nationally, however, Havering scores fell less than others and as such the ranking improved against all benchmarking groups.

In 2016, this first year of the Progress 8 measure, Havering performed poorly against all benchmarking groups, however in In 2017, as a result of concerted improvement activity, Havering’s score had improved, bringing progress in line with state-funded schools nationally, with ranking against all groups improving significantly.

The Sub-Committee was informed that at Key Stage 5 (A Level) the results outlined were state-funded Sixth forms but excluded Further Education Colleges.  There were six academy 6^th forms in Havering. In 2016, the point score attributed to the A*-E grades were reduced by a factor of 7 (C grade – 30pts previously 210pts).

The report detailed that the Average Points Score (APS) per entry increased nationally by 0.2pts, whereas Havering and its statistical neighbours decreased -0.7pts and -1.5pts respectively, however it had no impact on the ranking compared to last year.

The APS for students best 3 A-levels decreased by 0.9pts. Havering’s ranking against all benchmark groups therefore decreased, placing Havering in the 4^th quintile (below national).

The report informed the Sub-Committee that from 2016 the government changed how it measured outcomes for disadvantaged pupils.  The current measure ‘diminishing the difference’ compares disadvantaged pupils with national non-disadvantaged pupils.

In 2017, the Key Stage 2 performance of Havering's disadvantaged pupils achieving the expected standard at reading, writing, and mathematics was 58% against 47% national improving 6%pts on last year. Benchmark ranking are not yet available.

The Key Stage Progress 8 performance for disadvantaged pupils had a negative progress score, which was below the national average.  In 2017, progress score remains negative but has improved. Benchmark ranking are not yet available.

Attainment 8 points for Havering’s disadvantaged pupils declined from 41.3 to 38.1 in 2017 but the drop was attributed to grades changed.

The report outlined that disadvantaged pupils English Baccalaureate (Ebacc) entries remain broadly static, however the percentage achieving Ebacc increased 2%pts to 14% and an increase of 4%pts of disadvantaged pupils achieving the basics.

Havering performed in the top quintile for both Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET) and participation, performing significantly better that the England averages.  The numbers of young people participating in education and training was 94.4%, compared to 92.1% nationally. The number of young people in apprenticeships in Havering was 9.2%, compared to the national average of 6.4%.

The Sub-Committee was informed that Ofsted measured performance based on providers being judged as either Good or Outstanding, the remaining judgements being ‘Requires improvement’ and ‘Inadequate’ with the additional descriptor of ‘serious weaknesses’ or special measures.  Historically the main focus was ‘percentage of providers judged to be good or better’, in recent years this focus has changed to ‘percentage of pupils in a good or better school’.

In line with the Government’s initial intention of enforced academisation,  ‘failing’ schools that became sponsor-led were classified as new establishments, and exempted from inspection for a minimum of 3 years and were not included in Ofsted calculations.  It had led to a period of sustained national improvement of schools being Good or Better increasing from 69% in 2012 to 89% in 2017.

The Sub-Committee noted that Havering secondary sector had improved in 2017 and in primary, and now in line with national and statistical neighbours.  The new measure mirrors the position though in primary sector the percentage of pupils in a good or better school was above national and the rankings for primary have significantly improved in 2017.

The Sub-Committee was informed that as part of the next steps, the service would continue to monitor the performance of all schools on a regular basis with a refreshed approach to bringing about necessary improvements.

The monitoring would include forensic evaluation of progress through monthly performance review meetings in those schools identified as being under-performing and a greater use of the powers available to the authority where schools are a cause for concern.

The Sub-Committee noted the update report on school improvement.