Agenda item

7.1

The Committee received a report of Stephen Betts, Chief Executive, Learn Sheffield, on the work of Learn Sheffield and the School Improvement Strategy, together with information on the work undertaken to identify and support young carers. In attendance for this item were Stephen Betts and Pam Smith, Head of Primary and Targeted Intervention.

7.2

The report contained information on the general objectives of Learn Sheffield, details of specific Sheffield Priorities, together with information on the key themes within the Priorities, the Sheffield School Improvement Strategy, work in terms of the identification and support provided for young carers and what the Improvement Strategy meant for the people of Sheffield.

7.3

Members of the Committee raised questions, and the following responses were provided:-

·             As part of the Strategy, Learn Sheffield had looked outside Sheffield in terms of looking for examples of best practice, and was shortly to undertake a peer review of the education sector in Camden.  The information obtained as part of this work had fed into Learn Sheffield’s thought process.

·             Whilst independent schools were not formally part of the process, some such schools had a particular interest in certain activities, and some had bought in the moderation package on offer to them. 

·             It was suggested that the one identifiable feature of all successful educational facilities was quality teachers, and that the teachers in those countries with high attainment levels were held in high esteem.  Learn Sheffield had studied the educational systems in those high-attainment countries in the world to draw comparisons in terms of their success, and had also spoken to Lucy Crehan, author of Cleverlands, a study of the best education systems in the world, to seek her views on this issue. 

·             In terms of the key theme regarding Workforce, under the Sheffield Priorities, the recruitment, development and retention of high quality teachers, school staff, leaders and governors, was a very challenging process.  As part of this work, Learn Sheffield were working with Sheffield Hallam University who, in turn, were working with all teaching schools, as part of a project ‘Partners for Attainment’, to look at how the issue of recruitment could be collectively addressed. Whilst the suggestion of offering affordable housing and higher salaries to try and attract potential recruits was a good idea in principle, it was not that simple, and not strictly within the scope of the education sector.  There were plans to undertake a survey to find the reasons as to why some teachers left the country to work abroad. 

·             All schools in the City were engaged in the process, although the level and nature of such involvement differed between the schools. For example, after the school or academy categorisation had taken place, a conversation was held with the leader of the school about the entitlement to support and challenge. If it related to an academy from a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT), additional discussions with the Trust would often be required to ensure that the entitlement did not clash with the support and challenge in place from the MAT.  It was hoped that Learn Sheffield could continue to work to a set procedure with all the schools, which had proved reasonably successful to date, rather than having to establish a separate process for each of the different types of schools.

·             Whilst schools had not been required to contribute financially to the small growth in the Learn Sheffield team to date, on the basis that such work had been funded under the present contract, there was a likelihood that next year’s revised model would require some form of school contribution.

·             Whilst there were a number of advantages in terms of those education systems in the best performing countries across the world, there were also a number of disadvantages in terms of such education systems.  It was suggested that schools were very much results-led nowadays, which, in many cases, had resulted in the interest and fun, in learning, being lost.  Learn Sheffield was trying to set up a system which resulted in improved attainment levels, but also where all pupils received an education which prepared them effectively for further education or employment.

·             There was a general acceptance, particularly given the training involved, that all teachers in the City’s schools had the relevant qualifications.  However, there were concerns with regard to those establishments having more autonomy, such as academies, where there was sometimes less scrutiny with regard to the standard of teaching. 

·             It was accepted that in a number of schools, there was not enough information-sharing in terms of the identification of young carers.  Learn Sheffield were aware of this, and had plans to create a strong, local evidence base in order to both raise awareness and increase the level of professional support that could be provided to young carers.

·             An external review of Learn Sheffield would be commissioned, with this Committee possibly being included in this work, both in terms of contributing to the review and seeing the final report.

·             Learn Sheffield had a very limited role in terms of training senior managers in leadership to aid recruitment and retention of good quality teachers.  A limited amount of work had been undertaken in connection with this, on the basis that this was the role of teaching schools, although work was starting to take place, albeit mainly with those schools having a specific need for support.

·             It was accepted that there was a need for more work to be undertaken in order to facilitate the return to the teaching profession of those teachers who had either left to teach abroad or had taken a career break.  There had been a number of national programmes with regard to this work, although they had not been very successful.

·             It was accepted that there was a need for a more universal approach regarding the needs and role of young carers.  Whilst there was a need for openness, it was important that such young people were not stigmatised in any way.  Different schools would have different ways of dealing with this particular issue.

·             It was accepted that it was not easy for the public to find out whether Learn Sheffield was being successful in terms of its aims and objectives.  Meetings such as this Scrutiny meeting, where elected Members could question its role in depth, were very effective.  It was also accepted that Learn Sheffield tended to work closely with school leaders only, thereby having a  narrower role. 

7.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, the comments now made and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)      expresses its thanks to Stephen Betts and Pam Smith for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised;

(c)      requests that the final report on the findings of the pilot run by Sheffield Young Carers, which sought to embed and develop best practice around identifying and supporting young carers within schools, be circulated to all elected Members; and

(d)      agrees that arrangements be made for the Chair, Deputy Chair and the Policy and Improvement Officer to meet to discuss how Members of this Committee could potentially be involved in future policy development linked to strategies in this area, which include the Sheffield Challenge Model, Sheffield Priorities and Sheffield School Improvement Strategy.