Agenda item

Officers introduced a report on Standards and Quality in Education in Hillingdon. This annually produced report had been presented to Cabinet in January and was being presented to the Committee in order to provide an opportunity for Members to question officers and to seek clarification on the information contained therein.

The report showed that overall results and attainment had improved in Hillingdon and were continuing to rise across the five key stages. Results were particularly strong at key stages 1, 2 and 4. It was noted that there had been a number of changes in the national assessment frameworks. This had meant that reliable comparison with previous yearshad not always been possible. 2013/14 was the first time that results could be compared accurately with previous years. There had been a number of changes in the measures used at GCSE / Key Stage 4 level.

Within Hillingdon, 13 primary schools and five secondary schools had been identified by Ofsted as requiring improvement. One of the five had since improved and was therefore no longer included in the category. It was noted that Ofsted would challenge the leadership and governance of schools that were under performing. The Council issued warning notices and recommended intervention action for community schools where there was a need to improve standards, although warning notices were usually only issued as a last resort.

The majority of schools were supportive of Council efforts to improve standards. The Council also adopted a brokering role to enable schools that needed to improve to be supported by better performing schools. This support could be provided for a fixed period of time and could also cover a particular subject or range of subjects. A Member questioned how many of the schools that required improvement were under control of the Local Authority. Officers advised that at primary level, 10 out of the 13 that required improvement were maintained, while at secondary level, only one of the four were maintained by the Authority. 

Individual tuition support had been made available to Looked After Children in year 6 and year 11. It was noted separately that daily updates on school attendance were available to the Council and that for the 2014/15, there was a focus on improving literacy.

In response to a Member question, Officers advised that although the percentage of fixed term exclusions at Special Schools within Hillingdon (49.06%) was well above local and national averages, 95% of these exclusions had related to one school. Improvements had been made and the latest available figures showed a reduction in this type of exclusion.

There were two primary schools within the Borough that had five forms of entry. There was no evidence to show that the size of a school had a significant impact on pupil performance. Instead, leadership, governance and scrutiny of a school were the key factors that determined results.

Members questioned how school performance was moderated at primary level. Officers advised that there were three levels of moderation. This took place internally within schools and externally via the Department for Education's Standards and Testing Agency. The moderation process was also subject to scrutiny.

The Committee questioned whether it was the case that schools were able to obtain credit for the results of pupils who had sat examinations at institutions other than their own school. It was confirmed that this was an issue and that the academic results obtained by pupils at a school would not always fully reflect its success, or otherwise. This was due to external factors, such as pupils receiving private tuition.

A Member questioned whether the Council was aware of issues in relation to funding payments made to schools with regard to specific pupils and whether schools were aware of their obligations. It was also questioned whether checks could be made with schools. These payments were not ring-fenced and could therefore be spent on provision that did not directly benefit the child in question. It was confirmed that the issue was due for consideration and that a thematic review could be considered. This would be shared amongst all schools and it was noted that audit testing could be used to confirm how funding was being spent by schools. It was suggested that the issue be given further consideration by the Committee later in 2015.

The Committee questioned why the Ofsted judgements against school inspections had only been compared against national averages and not with other London Boroughs. It was suggested that this could be because such a comparison would make Hillingdon's performance look less good and that Hillingdon's Ofsted performance, was in fact, the ninth worst of the thirty-two London Boroughs. Officers acknowledged that there were some weaknesses in some of the Borough's schools and the Council was challenging schools to raise their standards.

Concerns were raised by Members that while performance for the seven key subjects at Foundation Stage (age 3 to 5) showed improvement across all areas compared to 2013, performance remained below the national and outer London averages. Officers advised that investment from Council officers would help to address issues. Last year there had been a focus on maths, while the focus during the current year was on improving literacy skills.

A Member noted that the names of the schools requiring improvement had not been provided in the report and officers advised that this information could be provided to the Committee separately.

Resolved: That:

1.    The spending of payments provided to schools to support specific pupils be investigated and a report brought to the Committee later in 2015.

2.    Officers to provide Democratic Services with the names of the schools within Hillingdon that required improvement, for circulation to the Commitee.

3.    The report be noted.