Agenda item

Officers presented the Annual Education Standards Report. Officers highlighted that there was work to do on Key Stage Four and Five outcomes; a healthy growth in primary education; and some work to do in early years.

Members enquired about the significant increase in good level of development in early years and sought explanations for it. Officers noted that coming of the back of the pandemic, while there was some settling down, schools were working effectively with children in early years. There was also good support from colleagues to support schools. It was noted that outcomes in later years were affected by what happened in early years.

Members further noted that for early years, Hillingdon was in line with statistical neighbours and outer London Boroughs, however this was not the case for Key Stage One and Two.

The discussion shifted to Key Stage 4 and 5 outcomes, with Members noting the challenges faced, especially in comparison to statistical neighbours and outer London boroughs. Members raised questions regarding the efforts to address these challenges, noting the role of the Regional Schools Commissioner. Officers noted school-to-school support and peer support with schools which was an ongoing strategy. Officers highlighted the Hillingdon Secondary Headteachers Association as an active tool of disseminating best practise. There were also conversations ongoing with colleagues in the academy sector. It may also be that the instability of the previous few years was now appearing in Key Stage 4 and 5, and mental health of young people was an overarching consideration. There appeared to be a trend whereby early years showed a high level of achievement which did not translate to later years. This was something that officers were aware of.

Officers noted that the differences between Hillingdon and statistical neighbours in Key Stages 1, 2 and 4 were minimal. Progress was being made on this and it was hoped that this progress would feed into Key Stage 5 as cohorts moved through the system.

Members asked about schools that ‘required improvement’ and sought clarification that these were not the same schools that went down to inadequate. Officers noted that they could come back to Members with this information. It was noted that these were private nurseries.

Members noted the discrepancies between Hillingdon and statistical neighbours and outer London, and asked about course provision and whether sixth formers can access the right courses for their skills. This was something that was constantly under review. There was a blend of academic with vocational opportunities for children. This was crucial because that was about intrinsic motivation and a desire to learn. Members raised the possibility of comparing students based on valued added.

Members referred to exclusions and suspensions and asked if there was a bias or over-representation in exclusions and suspensions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds or certain ethnic backgrounds. Officers would be able to provide this outside of the meeting.

Members further asked if there was anything in place in terms of ‘near-misses’ of permanent exclusions. Officers noted that they were developing the data set on exclusions and working with students on the road to exclusion so that they do not get excluded. Officers were working with roughly 30 children at any one time on this. Furthermore, officers were trying to capture data on exclusions that were retracted and were supporting schools with alternatives to exclusions.

Members emphasised the progress in good and outstanding schools over the last decade nationally.

Members expressed discomfort with comparing Hillingdon with statistical neighbours, considering factors such as the presence of Heathrow Airport and the number of transient pupils. Officers noted that comparisons to statistical neighbours, London and national data all gave different perspectives and so were good for benchmarking. Also, it was important for Hillingdon to compare to itself to ensure progress and improvements. It was noted that the Hillingdon Learning Partnership helped to shape the direction of travel.

Referring to SEND casework, Members raised concerns over the drop in the percentage of completing assessments and issuing EHCPs within 20 weeks from 2021 onwards. Members asked if things had improved since then. This was something that was being worked on. Current levels were similar to those stated in the report.

Members asked about closing the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. This would be a key part of the Education Strategy. It was important to note the ‘disadvantaged’ covered a broad spectrum. Working with schools as partners would be a key part of this. Further to this, Members asked if children with disadvantages were particularly hit by the pandemic. Officers highlighted the recovery curriculum that was put in place post-pandemic, noting that this may not have had the desired outcome as there was security in pre-pandemic routine. It was noted that with the increase in challenging behaviour exhibited by young people, that the true impact of the pandemic was now being shown.

Members noted that it was good that Hillingdon had one trained mental health professional in each school. Mental health was vital for both students and staff in school.

Members noted declining numbers of child minders in early years and high turnover rates. Officers noted that there was an issue around appropriate staffing in early years and the way early years was perceived in an educational environment. Officers noted that the NPQEYL early leadership course was maybe not comparable in terms of content to the senior leadership qualification or headship qualification. There was an issue around training available to staff in early years settings and access to that training.

Members asked about the in-year Fair Access Panel, noting that move-ins to the borough found it difficult getting a nearby school place. Members asked if the Panel was being used more and more for move-ins rather than special cases such as asylum seekers. Officers noted that the Fair Access Panel had clear criteria and so would not be used only for move-ins. Officers further noted that there was a particular challenge around Year 11.

Members asked about interim provision. This was short-term provision for children who arrived in the borough and did not immediately have a school place. This was used flexibly to meet need.

Members noted that they were pleased that officers were looking into how to reduce suspensions.

Members asked about children missing education and what the numbers looked like. Officers noted that the typical average was between 120 and 140 children, which was significantly lower than in previous years. There had been a lot of investment and a lot of work done in this area.

Members asked about mental health and whether the grant from the DfE would continue. Officers noted that this was a one-off grant. When officers were planning, they were looking at what would have the longest-term impact. There were various training schemes for schools around mental health, and mental health underpinned everything in education. There was also good work going on with mental health support teams in schools. Officers noted a project working with CAMHS and health providers, and there were an increasing number of schools having access to this. This was really important because this provided support to children that would not qualify for CAMHS support; therefore this was about trying to meet need in school through professionals that were trained to support those children before needs escalate.

Members referred to the EBSA (emotional based school avoidance) leaflet and asked if Members could have access to this. Officers noted that this could be looked into, and further noted that there was some literature within the Virtual School.

Members asked what the ‘September Guarantee’ referred to. This was where the Council needed to guarantee that every child in Year 11 had a place in further education when they got to 16 or 18. This was about placement sufficiency and ensuring that children do not end up as Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET).

Members referred to elective home education and asked what ‘philosophical reasons’ for this meant. Officers noted that there were certain schools of thought where some parents can attribute what they want for their children which may differ from the mainstream education pathway.

Members asked for a list of acronyms to be included in the final version of the report.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

1.    Noted the key findings set out in the report; and

2.    Delegated to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair (and in consultation with the Opposition Lead) to agree comments to be submitted to Cabinet.