Agenda item

Officers explained that recent legislative and OFSTED framework changes had led to alterations in how schools were assessed and categorised with the School Improvement Strategy. The Strategy was shared with partners including Heads, Governors and chief inspectors. The categorisations themselves had been decided by the Schools Monitoring Group which took a wide range of views including from school improvement teams, HR specialist and SEN teams. This group met monthly and, while schools were formally categorised annually, categories could be altered in order to reflect current circumstances. It was emphasised that the Strategy was not a system of punitive categorisations.

The process was based around the OFSTED categorisation framework and all schools were required to work towards achieving good or excellent status. In Havering, 81% of primary and 72% of secondary schools had achieved this status. Any school that was not on track to reach this level was required to be regarded as causing concern.

In terms of support levels, schools at category 1 already had a good or outstanding rating and were expected to continue to retain this. This applied to 80% of Havering primary schools. Category 2 schools had a clear trajectory for improvement to good or outstanding level. Category 3A schools were likely to have been assessed as requiring improvement and this category could also include current good or outstanding schools but with a downward trajectory. A category 3B school had a Local Authority warning that it was at risk of failure while a category 3C school was on a formal warning notice or had already failed an inspection.

In Havering, forty-seven schools were currently at category 1, three at category 2, one at category 3A, seven at category 3B and one at category 3C. A total of nine Havering schools were therefore causing concern as not yet having reached the good categorisation.

For schools in categories 1 and 2, ‘keeping in touch’ meetings were held with the Council’s quality assurance teams. These were also held with category 3A schools but with additional progress review meetings at least once a term. For category 3B schools, as well as these measures, a school would also be expected to undertake measures such as recruiting new Governors or partnering with a more successful school. All the above steps also applied for category 3C schools but there would also be monthly monitoring board meetings that sought to ensure a rapid and sustainable improvement. A new Executive Head may also be appointed for a school in this position.

Statutory powers of intervention included the appointment of new Governors, a forced closure (although this was not used in reality) or conversion to Academy status. Warning notices, including on financial issues, could also be issued and concerns could also be raised with OFSTED. A school could also be compelled to partner or federate with a more successful local school. It was accepted that the system may need reviewing due to the increasing number of Academies but officers were keen to continue developing school partnerships in Havering.

As regards academies that were failing, officers still had access to Academy data and ‘keeping in touch’ meetings could also be used. The head of service added that it was a challenge to maintain strong partnerships with Academies but this was generally done well in Havering. The Council retained statutory responsibility for children in Academies. Havering Academies were not holding back information and officers would be concerned if a school was not prepared to share information.

A co-opted member who was a Governor of a former category 3C school had found the improvement process to be very supportive and the school had been judged as Good in its most recent inspection. It was suggested that the Chair of Governors at a school that had improved from category 3 could address a future meeting of the Committee on how their school had improved.

The Data Dashboard school information produced by OFSTED was used by officers but there was also more detailed data available for judging a school. National or Local Leaders in Education (NLEs/LLEs) could also be attached to struggling schools and this was currently used at two schools in Havering. Some Havering Heads also fulfilled this role in other areas. As regards self-evaluation, schools were still advised to follow the OFSTED format for this but were able to choose their own format.

The Council would take budgetary control of a failing school if necessary and it was confirmed that the Education Services Grant would commence in April 2013. Children’s Services also worked closely with audit in the process of appraising schools. School auditors worked on site although in the case of an Academy, powers may be limited to raising concerns with the Governing Body. The Department for Education could also be involved if necessary.

Councillor Murray declared an interest at this point of the meeting as a School Governor.

Officers explained that it was not the case that failing schools tended to be in deprived areas of Havering with failing schools often being located in more mixed areas such as Elm Park or Romford.

The Committee NOTED the report.