Agenda item

Lauren Pang, Head of Information and Performance, and Mark Taylor, Director of Learning and Schools, presented the report which provided an overview of education performance in 2015.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The council compared education performance against Inner London and national averages. The report indicated strong overall performance and a high quality of education provision. All secondary schools were judged as good or better by Ofsted and all primary and secondary schools were above national floor standards.

·         It was noted that the percentage of pupils achieving five or more A* to C grade GCSEs including English and Maths had dropped by two percentage points compared to the previous year, however this measure varied significantly between schools. 

·         Islington schools were 6^th best in the country for the proportion of disadvantaged pupils achieving five or more A* to C grade GCSEs including English and Maths. It was noted that ‘disadvantage’ was defined by the Department for Education as including pupils eligible for free school meals,  who had been looked after, or who had been adopted from care.

·         There had been a continued improvement in attendance and overall levels of absence had reduced, however persistent primary school absence was above the national average.

·         Following an enquiry on the work to halve the rate of NEETs to 2.2%, it was advised that the council had achieved this by re-focusing its service on the basics of supporting the young people most in need at the right time. 

·         The Committee commented that the rate of primary exclusions was above Inner London and England averages. It was advised that as Islington had a relatively small population for an education authority and therefore exclusions had a significant impact on the borough’s overall exclusion rate. Some pupils had been excluded from multiple primary schools.

·         Members queried the varying performance levels of local schools. Officers commented that although schools did have different cohorts, they were not sufficiently different to explain variations in performance. It was suggested that changes in school leadership had impacted on the performance of some schools. It was also noted that the quality of school support mechanisms was not consistent and the council was monitoring this to ensure that pupils were accessing the most effective interventions. 

·         The Committee commented on the decrease in GCSE performance at Highbury Grove School and queried if the reported £200,000 shortfall in the school’s finances could lead to redundancies. In response, the Executive Member advised that this was a matter for the school’s governing body, however it was understood that the school’s finances had been affected by pension and national insurance changes and the council was liaising with the school and unions to ensure a coordinated and balanced approach. Officers advised that other schools may experience the same difficulties, however noted that this could not excuse a decrease in performance.

·         It was queried if the council would consider taking a political position on compulsory redundancies in schools. In response, it was advised that the council had not previously taken a political position however had supported the redeployment of staff.

·         Early years performance had improved, however was still below the national average. The Committee commented that Islington’s performance was broadly moving in line with the national average and further work was required to narrow the performance gap. It was suggested that improvements could be achieved by increasing the number of two year olds accessing early years education.

·         Although the performance of looked after pupils significantly exceeded the national average, the Executive Member commented that further improvement was needed. The Committee noted the role of the Corporate Parenting Board and the intention to appoint a governing body for Islington’s Virtual School.

·         The Committee queried the risks posed by the government proposal to convert all maintained schools to academies. In response, the Executive Member advised that the level of risk would not be fully known until draft legislation was published; however there was a significant risk that academy schools would not work in partnership through the Islington Community of Schools and would not engage with the council in supporting vulnerable pupils and achieving education improvement.

·         A member queried if a school-by-school analysis of the performance gap between pupils eligible for free school meals and the remainder of the cohort could assist in identifying the most effective use of pupil premium funding.

·         It was noted that the free school meals attainment gap was narrowing and Islington had one of the smallest attainment gaps in the country.

·         The Committee noted that English Baccalaureate performance was higher than the national average and Islington was in the top third of all local authorities. 

·         A member of the public queried if the council would consider establishing its own academy trust in response to the government proposal to convert all maintained schools to academies. In response, it was advised that the council would be campaigning against academisation. Whilst co-operative academy trusts were being explored in areas such as Brighton and Sheffield, this was not an option being considered at present.

The Committee thanked the officers for their attendance.