Agenda item

Dan Kennedy (Director - Housing, Environment, Education, Performance, Health & Wellbeing), Rani Dady (School Improvement Officer / Governance / Moderation Manager) and Naveed Mohammed (Head of Business Performance and Insight) introduced the annual Standards and Quality in Education in Hillingdon report for the year 2018/19.

Members were informed that within Early Years, attainment was at or above London and national averages. Key Stage 4 outcomes were above the national average, while Key Stage 5 remained challenging but was improving.

Ofsted inspection data showed that school ratings had declined slightly, with 88% of schools now judged good or better, compared to 91.3% of schools during 2017/18. Five schools had been downgraded following the most recent inspections, with one school the subject of intensive intervention.

Of specific cohorts, SEND attainment showed good progress, CLA remained stable, while children with EHCP’s and children with English as a Second Language had done well. White British boys remained an area of focus,

Members asked a number of questions, including:

White boys had struggled for a number of years. How was Hillingdon addressing this?

The attainment of white pupils remained challenging, though this was not unique to Hillingdon. To address this, the School Improvement Team had commissioned a White British disadvantaged project in 2019 to improve outcomes, and next year’s data would measure the impact of that project. Engagement and support was required at an early age, to promote interest and motivation in education. Family support was also key. Targeted intervention was in place for specific individuals.

How was Hillingdon tracking performance against the 9 priorities listed?

A dedicated team who work with only early year’s providers was in place, alongside an assessment framework for each of those individual providers, which allowed the Council to track progress. All providers were currently ‘good’, though further work was required to reach ‘outstanding’. A review was conducted every quarter, broken down by provider, which allowed officers to identify providers who needed additional support to achieve targets.

Were there mechanisms in place to ensure sustainability of improvements?

Officers worked closely with schools to ensure sustainability. Challenges to sustainability included turnover of staff, or occasionally specific cohorts of pupils.

Was there any data regarding permanent exclusions for 2018-19?

The report contained detail of exclusions for the 2017-18 academic year, which was the most recent published data available.

Could the officers comment on the unfilled Year 7 places in the south of the Borough? (The available spaces were predominantly in the north of the Borough)

Officers were attempting to balance the need for places based on the data available, versus the risk of oversupply. It was important to recognise that the placement data was a snapshot in time, and that a clearer picture would emerge once parents confirmed their acceptance of the places offered, as well as completion of processing of late or in-year applications.

Some Members raised concerns that results at Key Stages 1 and 2, and Hillingdon’s performance at these stages versus statistical neighbours and other London boroughs, was disappointing. These Members also raised concerns that comparing against national statistics was not providing a robust indication of performance. It was suggested that by looking at the problems in the context of the 14 Education Planning areas, the Council may be able to identify further actions aimed at improving results.

Members thanked the officers for the comprehensive report but requested additional detail of:

• how Hillingdon was performing in comparison to statistical neighbours and other London boroughs;
• how Hillingdon was identifying and working with underperforming schools;
• trends across multiple previous years;
• performance of NEET children;
• progress against the September guarantee;
• clarity around increased IYFAP placements;
• the performance of schools within the 14 education planning areas;
• how Hillingdon was learning from its neighbours, some of whom were performing better within more deprivation;
• detail around secondary school places for children with EHCPs; and
• feedback from parents around the schools admission process.

It was agreed that the clerk would liaise with officers regarding the sharing of this additional information to the Committee. It was requested that Members email the clerk should they have requests for any further specific information.

Members noted the contents of the report, and Councillor Tuckwell suggested:

“That the Committee welcomes the improvements set out in that report, but requests additional information to allow for further scrutiny, with particular regard to Hillingdon’s performance versus its statistical neighbours and neighbouring London boroughs. The Committee also request that the Council looks at ways of improving outcomes for families in areas where schools may be facing external challenges.”

Following a proposal by the Chairman, the above comments were approved by the

Committee as comments to be submitted to Cabinet.

RESOLVED: 

1. That the report be noted;
2. That the comments of the Committee, as outlined above, be included in the forthcoming report to the Cabinet; and
3. That the clerk liaise with officers regarding the provision of further information to the Committee.