Agenda item

6.1

James White, Assistant Director, Policy and Performance, introduced a presentation outlining the latest provisional results in relation to educational attainment in the City. The presentation comprised two main areas, firstly the results for children aged 5-16 and, following this, the performance of vulnerable groups in the City.

6.2

Also attending the meeting for this item was Iain Peel, Assistant Director, Inclusion and Learning.

6.3

Members asked a number of questions and responses were received as follows:-

·  The new criteria for children eligible for free school meals for a six- year period would be measured in the future and were not included within the results presented.

·  The recent Government White Paper had been clear that the role of the Local Authority was the commissioning of high quality places and championing performance outcomes. The role no longer focused on providing support, but to challenge schools or the fourth sector.

·  The Local Authority would ensure that the improved results for 2012 would not lead to complacency. Discussions were still being held with secondary schools. Individual support would continue to be brokered with individual schools where required. Discussions were being held with governing bodies about outcomes and different areas of support were being signposted. The main difference was that the Local Authority was no longer the provider.

·  The floor standard would likely increase by 2015 to 50%. The uplift in Key Stage 4 results masked the problem that some traditionally high performing schools were moving the wrong way downwards to a floor standard which was moving upwards.

·  There had been recent changes made to the inspection framework and there was no such thing as satisfactory anymore. Anything not categorised as good required additional measures to be implemented although the category ‘Requires Improvement’ was not an OFSTED category of concern.

·  The issue of positive challenge for governors was key and easy to understand information would be sent to governors as well as top 10 questions which a governor may like to ask to gain an understanding of the reasons for performance.

·  There was no lesser expectation for any pupil in the system. Every child was expected to make at least two levels of progress in the primary phase and three levels of progress at the secondary stage. However, it was recognised that not every child may reach the expected level for their age. Attainment in terms of threshold correlated with deprivation.

·  Differences in performance between primary and secondary could be because of the more diverse curriculum at secondary level. At the primary stage, pupils had the same teacher throughout and there was less range in terms of what was expected. The practice within secondary teaching was more variable as was the case across the country.

·  It was hoped that the impact of the pupil premium would be reflected in the narrowing of the gap at Key Stage 4 within the next couple of years.

·  It was worthwhile to examine OFSTED reports alongside attainment results to assess a school’s performance. However, schools were not inspected every year.

·  The foundation stage showed the most extreme differences in terms of performance. This stage had the highest performance levels, but also the widest gap. It was clear that if success was achieved with a child at ages 3-5, this would make things easier moving forward.

Members made a number of comments as follows:-

·     The results were encouraging and showed the consistent approach of the Local Authority and maintaining strategies was beginning to show successful outcomes.

·     Comparing the performance of local authorities across the country was often problematic due to the different socio-economic bases of local authorities.

·     What made a difference in Sheffield was that that the City truly cared about the importance of a child’s education and that was not always the case elsewhere.

·     Improving performance was not an overnight process and the upturn in the last four years was unprecedented. However, there was no room for complacency and similar improvements should be expected in 2013.

·     Schools had reported very positive feedback about the quality of the data released and the accessibility of the information.

6.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a) notes the information received; and

(b) requests that the thanks of the Committee be extended to officers for the interventions undertaken which had led to the improved results in educational attainment in 2012.