Agenda item

Mark Taylor, Director of Learning and Schools, and Lauren Pang, Head of Information and Performance, introduced the report which summarised educational performance in 2016.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         2016 had been a year of significant change. A new primary curriculum had been introduced, and a new accountability framework had been introduced at secondary level.

·         The quality of educational provision in Islington was high. 96% of primary schools were rated ‘outstanding’, although there had been a slight decrease in the quality of secondary provision following Highbury Grove School being rated as Inadequate.

·         Islington had narrowly missed the top quartile for pupils reaching the expected standard in combined reading, writing and maths at Key Stage 2.

·         Officers explained the new Progress 8 measure, which assessed the progress of pupils relative to their peers, measuring their outcomes at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4. Islington was ranked 18^th nationally for this new measure, above Inner London and National averages.

·         Officers commented there was further room for improvement on the Attainment 8 score, which was above the national average, but below the Inner London average.

·         It was welcomed that there had been further reductions in the number of young people NEET or in Alternative Provision.

·         Officers highlighted that average Progress 8 scores varied by ethnicity. Work was underway to analyse this and then roll out the techniques used by the highest performing schools.

·         Persistent absence remained a challenge. It was commented that persistent absentees often displayed other challenging behaviour.

·         Discussions were underway on how to further develop the Community of Schools. The schools were considering establishing a more formal governance structure which would strengthen the group, however it was not intended to increase bureaucracy.

·         James Stephenson commented that he had attended the local education equalities conference ‘Closing the Gap’. It was reported that this was an interesting and productive session, however it was felt that discussions were focussed on parents and communities, and the conference would have benefitted from a stronger emphasis on the views and experiences of young people.

·         A member of the public suggested that school absences could be a result of bullying. Officers advised that this could be a factor in some instances, however there were a range of reasons why some young people disengaged from education. 

·         A member of the Committee advised that she knew of local families whose children did not want to attend school due to islamophobic bullying. Officers advised that schools took islamophobia very seriously; however acknowledged that some schools needed to improve their complaint management processes and communicate more effectively with parents. 

·         A member of the public provided an example of a child with special educational needs who was struggling in mainstream school. It was suggested that the child would be better supported at The Bridge Special School, however there were not sufficient places. Officers acknowledged that spaces at The Bridge were limited, however advised that The Bridge would be operating satellite provision at some mainstream schools from September 2017.

·         The Committee considered the significant differences between the attainment of different ethnic groups. It was commented that this needed addressing with some urgency otherwise there would be a longer term effect on society. Members of the Committee highlighted that booster classes and special projects were previously provided for pupils from certain ethnic backgrounds, and it was suggested that reintroducing such schemes would help to raise attainment.

·         It was welcomed that Islington pupils made good progress, however it was suggested that Islington pupils may have a lower starting point than pupils in more affluent areas.

·         The Committee considered the challenges faced by children looked after and expressed their concern at the significant attainment gap between looked after children and the mainstream cohort.

·         Whilst the achievements in pupil progress and GCSE attainment were welcomed, it was commented that further work was needed to improve performance at the Early Years Foundation Stage and Key Stage 5.

·         A member of the public queried why primary school attainment was below the Inner London average. In response, officers advised that schools in Inner London had very high levels of attainment and whilst the council aspired for Islington schools to achieve the same level, this was a challenge. It was noted that primary attainment in Islington had improved over recent years.

·         A member of the public commented on why the number of primary school exclusions was so high. In response, officers acknowledged that this was a concern, and suggested that the pressures on finances and resources and the increased focus on performance in recent years may have contributed to decisions to exclude pupils. The council was engaging with head teachers on this issue.

·         The Committee noted that, whilst some London boroughs had lower NEET rates than Islington, they also had a much higher percentage of pupils whose destination was unknown. It was queried if Islington was more diligent at collecting the destinations data of young people than other boroughs. Officers could not comment on the activities of other boroughs, however indicated that local authorities would be required to report their NEET and unknown rates in future.

The Committee thanked the officers for their attendance.

RESOLVED:

i)              That recent changes to curriculum, examination and assessment arrangements be noted;

ii)             That the key strategic priority to further develop the Islington Community of Schools be noted.