Agenda item

Members raised concerns about the gap between non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged students in Hillingdon, compared to statistical neighbours, and asked about bridging the gap. Officers acknowledged the issue and noted the launch of a program in November to address this gap. The program involved collaboration with the Education Endowment Foundation in partnership with schools and aimed to improve standards for vulnerable groups, including those on the pupil premium and special educational needs registers. This would also involve looking at what can be learned from other boroughs. It was noted that a number of schools, both primary and secondary, were doing excellently.

Members pointed out discrepancies in the report regarding Hillingdon's performance compared to statistical neighbours. The report stated that Hillingdon was generally in line with national and statistical benchmarks for Key Stage 2 outcomes, but the data showed otherwise. Officers agreed to ensure this would be more clear in future.

Members highlighted concerns about early years outcomes, noting that Hillingdon children were underperforming compared to national and London averages. Officers explained that efforts were being made to improve early years outcomes through collaboration with schools and the Education Endowment Foundation. The focus was on language and communication, with a heavy emphasis on early years education.

Members inquired about the review process for who the statistical neighbours were, and whether the benchmarks were still relevant. Officersexplained that the focus was primarily on London neighbours (i.e. Brent and Harrow), as they provide a more accurate comparison. Officers emphasised the importance of looking at what worked in other boroughs and applying those strategies in Hillingdon. It was not just about teaching and learning, all schools had flagged attendance as an issue. For example, there were currently 1,000 children with a known social worker, and their attendance rates varied but were generally not high enough to have significant achievement.

Members requested more detailed information on subject performance across the borough, particularly for children with SEND and especially in secondary schools. Officers noted that this information was available and it was suggested that the report could be revamped to include this information in future.

Members raised concerns about the number of secondary schools on the at-risk register. Officers clarified that the number of schools on the at-risk register had decreased since 2023-24 from seven. The register was used to track and support schools in need. Officers emphasised the importance of providing targeted support to these schools. Some schools were on the register as a caution.

Members asked about the communication and implementation of the five-year priorities outlined in the report. Officers explained that the priorities had been shared with all schools and stakeholders. Discussions were being held with schools before the draft education strategy was published. A data dashboard was being created to track progress and ensure effective implementation.

Members inquired about culturally specific interventions for underachieving disadvantaged groups, such as white British, black Caribbean, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller students. Members also asked about how pupil premium funding was used to narrow the achievement gap. Officers noted that firstly, awareness of the issues was needed to give the opportunity for people to review and interrogate their data. It was noted that other components were involved. For example, for black Caribbean students, across the country over the last 25 years there was a higher level of exclusions. Officers explained that the focus was on quality first teaching in the mainstream classroom rather than wraparound interventions, and providing opportunities for schools to review and improve their pupil premium strategies. Collaboration with the Education Endowment Foundation was ongoing.

Members asked about comparisons between courses on offer in Hillingdon compared to its statistical neighbours, specifically for Key Stage 4 and 5. Officers noted Uxbridge College which had a vast offer including level 1 courses. Officers were confident in the range of courses available. It was noted that some schools had stuck with A Levels because of the demand for this, while some students moved on to college because the courses they wanted were not available in school. It was noted that big further education colleges had a wider range of offers. Officers had a good relationship with Uxbridge College and were working with them, and working with them to work with schools and to be more collaborative as well. It was further noted that young people had a range of options. Officers had produced a prospectus which included all of the post 16 providers and schools, and also helped year 11s understand their pathway. This was due to be made available on mobile. This could be shared with Members.

Members asked about the reasons for elective home education and monitoring the progress of home-educated children. Officers explained that the reasons for elective home education were varied. If a family decided to home educate, the current school should conduct an interview which asks for a reason why, though the Council relied on parents sharing this information, which was not always the case. Officers were trying to ensure that people were not being forced to home educate, and Government had indicated bringing in a register with more parental obligations. Gaps in monitoring progress of home educated young people also existed as this also required parental engagement. Safeguarding remained a concern as home educated young people were less visible. Some may have child protection plans or child in need plan and so collaboration was important.

Members asked about the speed of identifying, and characteristics of, children missing from education. There were different elements involved such as keeping children safe in education, and children with unexplainable absences which should be referred to children’s social care. The attendance team worked closely with schools to identify and support children missing from education. It was noted that while sporadic attendance had been a problem, overall attendance had improved in the borough. The characteristics of these children were being analysed to provide targeted support.

On the Fair Access Panel, Members raised concerns about children traveling long distances to school, especially from the south of the borough. Officers acknowledged the issue and explained that the admissions team worked proactively with academies and maintained schools to address this concern. There was still work to do but every individual child was monitored.

Members noted that three children had been referred to the Fair Access Panel whereby ‘a place has not been sought due to exceptional circumstances’, and asked what this meant. Officers noted that this included one young person who had experienced a mental health breakdown which led to hospital admission. This young person was identified by CAMHS as not fit for school. There were instances linked to emotionally based school non-attendance of young people feeling suicidal about school.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families & Education Select Committee:

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

2. Delegated comments for inclusion in the Cabinet Member report to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead