Agenda item

This report details the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools for the period from March 2019-2020. In the case of education services, it covers the results of the school year 2018-19 and activity during that year and the first half of the current school year.

This report has been circulated separately to the main agenda as it was necessary to undertake further work with the Portfolio Holder in finalising the report. Therefore, the Committee is asked to accept this report as urgent to enable the holding to account of the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, to take place alongside the Committee’s consideration of the Annual Report on School Performance (item 5 on the same agenda).

Discussion:

Members received a report providing an overview of progress on the areas within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools, as set out below:

·         Early Years

·         Education Safeguarding

·         Further Education and Higher Education Liaison

·         Mainstream School Transport

·         Newly Qualified Teachers

·         Primary and Secondary Educational Improvement

·         School Organisation and Capital Projects

·         School Services (including Admissions and Medway Test)

·         Schools Liaison

·         Youth Champion (including Medway Youth Council)

The Portfolio Holder for Education and Schools responded to Members’ questions and comments, which included:

·         Stalled improvement at Key Stage 1 and 2 – a Member raised concern that at key stage 1, six fewer schools achieved the expected standard in 2019 and in Key Stage 2 the previous accelerated progress had stalled.  The Portfolio Holder referred to the previous poor performance at Key Stage 2, where Medway had been joint bottom in the country and was now within 1% of the national average, which had made Medway one of the most improved education areas.  Work with schools was continuing to strengthen sector leadership but support for schools individually was provided where necessary.  The point was also made that for some schools, because of the cohort of children, reaching the expected targets would be difficult but that they may still demonstrate excellent accelerated progress between Key Stages 1 and 2, therefore some contextualising of the data was necessary, to understand pupil progress as well as performance.

·         Early Years Funding – in response to a question about Early Years provision and associated funding, the Portfolio Holder confirmed his confidence in there being adequate provision in Medway and that whilst acknowledging the challenge that was presented when funding policies changed, providing additional children with funded nursery places, the local authority had worked with providers to respond to that challenge to ensure demand was met.

·         Waterfront University Technical College (UTC) – in response to references made about the UTC and concerns the Committee had raised following its last Ofsted judgement, the Portfolio Holder confirmed he attended the UTC every term in the previous year and was looking to organise a further visit imminently. He reported that the UTC had made huge improvements, with intake now starting from Year 9 and young people attending the school through choice, rather than because they had exhausted other options.

·         Partnership Risk Ratings – in response to a query the Portfolio Holder confirmed that this was used by officers to identify issues at risk meetings with schools, although this currently only related to schools maintained by the local authority.

·         Liaison with School Governors – in response to a question the Portfolio Holder responded that the statutory role in supporting governing bodies was commissioned to The Education People and added that he did liaise with governors, although this was limited compared to his liaison with Headteachers. The Interim Assistant Director, Education and SEND added that briefings were provided to governing bodies and meetings with them took place as and when required. He confirmed that The Education People were commissioned to support the governing bodies of Medway’s maintained schools, including the provision of training. Where academies make their own arrangements, officers liaise with Headteachers to ensure they have appropriate and effective access to the governing body and that they have no concerns about its operation.

·         Key Stage 5 – in response to concerns raised about performance at Key Stage 5, the Portfolio Holder accepted that performance at Key Stage 5 was mixed however explained that all secondary schools in Medway were rated either good or outstanding and Mid Kent College also achieved a good judgement in 2019.

·         Surge classes -  in response to a question relating to the surge classes in secondary schools for the September 2020 Year 7 intake, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the surge class programme related to non-selective secondary schools only, although grammar schools were also being expanded to provide additional grammar school places in Medway.

·         Performance relating to vulnerable children – concern was raised about the higher exclusion figures relating to vulnerable children and correlating poor performance.  The Portfolio Holder confirmed this was an area of focus for the School Challenge and Improvement Team to improve inclusion and performance for children with additional educational needs or disabilities and children who are looked after.

·         Medway Cultural Education Partnership (MCEP) – in response to a question about further information on the MCEP, the Portfolio Holder explained that it was a transition pilot, involving the Royal Opera House Bridge and a number of schools were engaged. He also referred to the Dynamics Hub, which engaged with all Medway schools. Officers added that a Creative Arts Network was establishing amongst primary and secondary schools, with the number of Medway’s schools involved in the network growing.

The Portfolio Holder then explained it was the Interim Assistant Director of Education and SEND’s last day working with Medway and thanked him for his work in Medway, particularly in strengthening networks and relationships with schools. The Committee supported the Portfolio Holder in thanking him for his hard work at Medway.

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for his attendance.