Agenda item

Report and Presentation by Grahame Smith.

The Committee received the School Performance Report for Havering’s Primary and Secondary schools for 2013 and accompanying annexe of tables. The report summarised performance in key stage assessments, tests, examinations and Ofsted inspections.

The 2012 / 2013 school year was generally a positive year for Havering schools.  Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) results were strong, and once again Havering

enjoyed its best ever results at key stage one and equalled the previous best (2012) at key stage two. Following a fall at GCSE in 2012, the 5 A*-C grades (including English and Maths) pass rate also increased in 2013.  There was only one Havering school in the primary sector below the government floor standard (at least 60 per cent achieving Level 4+ in Reading, Writing and Mathematics) and none below floor in the secondary sector.

Overall attainment at key stages one, two and four remained above the national average for each of the main attainment measures and were higher than the average performance of our statistical neighbours.

Early Years (EYFS)

Table 1 showed that pupils in Year R in Havering schools did particularly well in 2013 outperforming London (a high- performing area), its ‘statistical neighbours’ (Bexley) and England.  The four year olds performed better than those in 134 out of 152 ‘top tier’ LAs.  Havering was 18^th which is near to the top 10 per cent.

Key Stage 1

Table 2 showed that Year 2 pupils in performed at a consistently high level against all comparator groups, within the top half of the top quartile in 2013 and was close to the top 10 per cent in England. 

Key Stage 2

The table showed that pupil performance was now very good, and had improved in the four year period shown. Performance was better than that in most of the comparator groups, and significantly better than most.  Inner London boroughs had on average, overtaken Havering but this was within the context of Inner London being the area that was the most improved in the country, and remained extremely well-funded. 

In reading and writing, performance was very good when compared with statistical neighbours – first in reading and second best progress in writing but only in the second quartile against all LAs and slightly lower than the London average.

Key Stage 4

The two key performance indicators were progress pupils had made since key stage two and their attainment. Progress was measured in mathematics and English.  Key stage 4 progress in mathematics was improving in absolute terms, although declining slightly in comparative ranking – from top quartile to ‘top second quartile’ progress. The decline was primarily due to the excellent improvement in London as a whole.

Progress in English was less good while remaining sound. There was a marking ‘borderline shift’ issue in 2012 that particularly affected pupils here; but in 2013 progress was better than the figure nationally and amongst statistical neighbours. 

The table showed Havering pupils continued good performance. Havering’s  national league table position had fallen to just outside the top quartile as progress in all comparator groups had improved and that the three-point improvement in the period was bettered nationally by a seven point increase. 

Attainment Gap

Narrowing the attainment gap between pupils entitled to free school meals (FSM) and all other pupils (non-FSM) was a key government priority.  Whilst there were  other important factors, analysis shows that poverty is often the key factor thus the introduction of the pupil premium.

Pupils attending Havering schools had a larger gap in attainment in 2013 between those currently eligible for FSM and Non-FSM pupils than was found nationally at both key stage two and key stage four. Nationally, the gap had narrowed by one point in the period, but it was a point lower than Havering’s in 2010, and as Havering’s increased, it was now three points more. 

If the performance of all pupil premium eligible groups in 2013 were used, 43 per cent achieved the benchmark level for key stage four. This was three points higher than the national average. The performance of all other pupils was 68 per cent against the same measure and was only one point higher than nationally. This means the gap at 25 per cent was two points lower than nationally. 

It was recognised that the gap was still high and it was the aspiration of the team that it should reduce to zero. A quality assurance team had produced a narrowing the gap action plan and had identified target schools and academies where the gaps were largest. Quality assurance visits had also been scheduled to assess the effectiveness of the school’s systems and ensure that the pupil premium resources are targeted correctly and that it funds high impact intervention strategies.

Key Stage Five – post-16 results

       Members were asked to note that the movement of post-16 students in London was considerable and therefore the tables should not be relied upon to give an accurate measure of the performance of Havering students. 

       A level three qualification is an advanced (A) level or equivalent.  In 2010, 99 per cent of students in post-sixteen institutions achieved this benchmark.  This was top-class – within the top three per cent of areas in performance, however, performance has declined since then along with Havering’s ranking which is now in the lower quartile and below all the comparator groups. While all of these have declined, this is at a much lower rate than in Havering. 

       It was important to note Havering’s school sixth forms tended to perform more highly that the colleges. This was largely due to the colleges accepting a lower tariff on entry and offering a higher proportion of non-A-level subjects. The lower levels of attainment on entry meant that generally students from the colleges attained lower levels at the end of their sixth form courses. 

       Members requested to know what was being done to improve college performance and were advised that the colleges had their own governing bodies and therefore the Local Authority did not have a statutory responsibility. It was noted however that the Head of Learning and Achievement had regular meetings with both Principals. 

Schools causing concern

The Havering School Improvement Services (Hsis) had developed a comprehensive quality assurance framework.  Following an assessment, including a comprehensive analysis of detailed performance data, every school including academy schools was placed in one of five categories.  Category 1 were schools expected to remain good or outstanding at their next inspection, whilst Category 2 schools were expected to be ‘good’ at their next inspection

It was schools in category three that were ‘of concern’ to the Local Authority.   Category three schools were split into three sub-categories as follows:

·           schools at risk of being categorised by Ofsted as ‘requiring improvement to be good (RI)’ – note that ‘requires improvement’ has replaced ‘satisfactory, and means a school judged RI will be judged to be ‘grade four’, requiring intervention, if it is RI at two subsequent inspections;

·           schools at risk of failure – defined as schools issued with a formal warning notice by the LA; graded as RI by Ofsted; or at risk of being judged to have ‘serious weaknesses’ by Ofsted at its next inspection; and

·           schools in special measures or judged to have serious weaknesses; or that fell below the relevant Department for Education (DfE) ‘floor standard’ in the last assessment.

It was noted that 17 per cent of primary schools and 50 per cent of secondary schools in Havering were of “concern”.  Whilst it was acknowledged there was a need to improve the number of good schools from four out of five to more like nine out of ten and to help to move more good primary schools to ‘outstanding’, it was   the secondary (and post-16) sectors where consolidation was most urgent. 

Currently, almost a third of secondary-age pupils attended a school that was not yet good or better. Local Authority quality assurance staff were working closely with a number of schools on improvements in key areas that would reduce the risks of a decline in OFSTED categorisation of secondary schools that were currently rated as good, and to assist those currently judged to be satisfactory or (where inspections have been since September 2012) required  improvement to be good.

The Committee noted the report and the challenges facing Havering and commended pupils and students in their achievements, and the successful contributions made by head teachers, teachers, support staff and governors.