Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive Officer, Camden Learning.

A presentation will be given to the committee providing the 2023 end of key stage statutory assessment results from Camden Primary (KS1 & 2) and Secondary (KS4 & 5) schools with analysis of the performance of different key groups including disadvantage, gender, SEND and ethnicity. This data also includes key contextual measures such as Ofsted inspection outcomes, destinations, attendance, exclusions, children missing in education and pupils who are electively home educated.

These outcomes provide an overview of various performance measures related to overall school performance in Camden. Caution is advised when considered trends over time due to the legacy of the pandemic. For secondary schools, the Ofqual announcement of a return to pre-pandemic grading at GCSE and A Level in 2023 meant that national results would be lower than the previous summer.

The report appendix contains the near final draft report of actions related to Year I of the implementation of Building Back Stronger, Camden’s Education Strategy.  It describes actions and progress while also identifying areas for development in 2024.

This report has been commissioned from Camden Learning by Camden Council.

Consideration was given to the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Camden Learning.

Stephen Hall (Chief Executive Officer of Camden Learning), accompanied by DAME Christine Gilbert (Chair of Camden Learning), outlined the report and presentation slides which covered the following areas: Outcomes by Key Stage (KS) [Early Years, Phonics, KS1, KS2 Attainment, KS2 Progress, KS4 Attainment, KS4 Progress, Post-16]; Key groups [Disadvantaged Pupils, Ethnic Groups Summary, Bangladeshi Pupils, Caribbean Pupils, Somali Pupils, Gender, Pupils with SEND, Mobile pupils]; Attendance and Exclusions; Children Missing Education;  Elective Home Education; and the draft Building Back Stronger Annual Report. In addition, it was stated that data should be understood in the current context of falling rolls, which affected some schools more than others. Other pressures on schools included increasing additional needs, reduced budgets, and lasting impacts from the pandemic such as lost learning. In relation to Appendix 3 (year one of the implementation of Building Back Stronger), it was stated that Camden Learning was working with the Education Strategy Board to assess and track activities implemented to review if they were having the desired affect and impact.

The Chair thanked Camden Learning for the report and invited questions and comments from the Committee. The following was discussed:

·       A Member noted the worrying trend of children missing in education, acknowledging that in many cases there were unique circumstances and complex needs, which had also been made more challenging by the pandemic.

·       A Member noted the elective home education (EHE) trends were concerning when observing the rising trend, despite the currently low numbers.  The Council and Camden Learning had to support families who were considering the EHE option and were dissatisfied with their school offer. In response, it was confirmed that whilst concerning, rising EHE was a national trend and impact of the pandemic. Camden had a broad and inclusive offer and waned parents to feel welcomed. Local authorities were restricted by legislation and did not have many legal powers to enforce attendance.

·       A Member asked for data on the child population of refugees in Camden. In response officers confirmed it was difficult to extrapolate that data because there was not census data, nationally or in Camden. It was noted individual schools would have information of how many refugees pupils they had on roll. It was also noted that Camden did have the statistics for the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) who were looked after children in Camden. Officers confirmed they would investigate how to gather data on the number of child refugees in Camden.

Action By – Executive Director for Children and Learning

·       A Member asked what was Camden’s response to the Mayor of London’s Inclusion Charter for schools. It was confirmed that the content of the charter resonated and synchronised with the ongoing work of Camden Learning and Building Back Stronger (Camden’s Education Strategy). Camden was already working with the Mayor of London’s Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) prevention work. There had been opportunities for Camden through the Charter, including the Right Respecting Schools Award and having an ambassador from UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) allocated to work with Camden to form a steering group. Camden schools shared the good practice and Camden Learning undertook a research report being presented to schools. This work would be embedded into the curriculum which would empower young people, ensure young people understood they had a voice and rights, and ensure they understood a sense of equity and inclusion.

·       In relation to the ethic groups summaries, a Member stated that the data should be understood with caution because the African heritage group combined many different regions and countries. Officers agreed that caution should be made when comparing the DfE groupings. Camden wanted to focus more on the school level differences and ensuring the curriculum, teaching and learning was relevant and appropriate for the demographics of a school and was delivering for pupils. As a system they wanted to raise awareness of racism, anti-racism, bias, racial literacy, and effective pedagogy.

·       A Co-opted Member asked if every child who was attending a Camden school was represented in the report, including disapplied children, children with an EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan), and children with SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) needs. It was confirmed that disapplied students were not included in the validated data. Special school pupils were included if they were not disapplied.

·       A Member suggested that it would be helpful to see the school level data accompanying future iterations of the report.

·       Officers acknowledged the gender attainment gap and explained that it was a national issue which had been notable for many years. To tackle this issue there had to be work carried out to ensure the curriculum pathways were appropriate.

·       In relation to the KS4 Summary Next Steps, a Member asked how schools were comparing their results if not to the previous two years, and if that was using the pupil progress scores, they asked what processes challenged those comparisons, who advised them, and what was the training offer for those advisors. In response, it was confirmed that all advisors were either current or ex-headteachers or current or ex-Ofsted inspectors. The relationship between advisors and schools was critically important and there was ongoing quality assurance and training to support the process.

·       A Member asked how Project Boards supported schools who were not succeeding to the expected level. In response, it was confirmed that Project Boards were 6-weekly focussed meetings with 3-4 key aims a school was struggling with - usually related to leadership, curriculum management, or standards. At the meetings it was discussed what the schools were doing, how other schools could potentially help, how Camden Learning could help, and then the next review would take place 6 weeks later with the advisors and Camden Learning.

·       In relation to the Post-16 Summary Next Steps, a Member asked how the actions listed would impact low results. In response, it was confirmed there were a number of steps in the post-16 action plan and Building Back Stronger. Currently there was low data and measuring of outcomes for this age group; however, the action plan initiatives would address this and going forward the impact measures would improve using hard measurable outcomes, one example was the T-Levels. It was stated that post-16 institutions across the brough were working together in a way they had not done before, despite the competition.

·       A Member noted there were no impact measures of the ‘Every Child Reading by 7’ initiative, and there was no data on children who were readers before and after, which meant it was not possible to confirm the impact the initiative had on SEND children. The Member acknowledged that officers said Camden Leaning was working on measuring impacts following implementation work.  In response, it was confirmed that the large majority of children were exceeding the standard, but 28% of children were not and a proportion of those would be SEND. As part of the activities being undertaken to support children there was a focus on what provision was available for individual pupils. Some of the primary schools the number of children not reaching the expected standard was 3-5 children at the age of 7, and it was a case of reviewing what could be put in place for the individual children to gain those basic skills and build a love of reading and a sense of literature. There were also author visits and activities at the British Library build excitement for the children about reading and build aspiration once confidence was nurtured. Officers stated there was more work to be done with the initiative in what individual schools and children needed.

A Member stated that having a focus on training would not be sufficient that to improve the SEND interventions, in the environment of decreased budgets, significant changes in criteria and assessments, and teachers already struggling to deliverer for a widening range of needs with the same resources. In response, it was confirmed that SEND needs had increased, with class sizes staying the same size. It was confirmed there had not been changes to assessments apart form those during the pandemic.  The training for teachers was to focus on managing high needs children. A part of the broader conversation was looking at what curriculum was offered to those pupils and how teaching assistants were utilised and deployed to the highest need.

·       In response to a Member, officers acknowledged that it would be interesting to find the statistics of how the level of EHE varied between across geographic areas of the borough.

·       A Member noted the stronger outcomes of the lower key stages which declined through each transition, and ask what transitional work took place between KS4-5 to support that significant independence jump for a young person, because there appeared to be more of a focus for young stages. In response, in this cohort impacted from the pandemic, there were a number of students were channelled on A-Level pathways at a higher level they would have before, which resulted in worse grades on average. The future life plans work and focus on all transitional phases were important. Camden Learning had worked with and produced guidance for primary and secondary transitions, and there was more work taking place focusing on mid-year admission transitions.

·       In response to a Member, officers confirmed there was no indication T-Levels would be scrapped; T-Levels were included in plans for the new Advanced British standard qualification and were resourced with investment and commitment.

·       A Member asked if the university offers data was available at this time of year. They also asked for information about sixth form attendance and if Camden Leaning was doing anything in that area. In response, it was stated that at this time of year there was interim data available, not hard data. However, it was noted there was an opportunity to look at measurables until that data was validated.  There was attendance score data which helped informed quick responses, and persistent absence was improving in the age group.  There was new guidance on school avoidance and Camden Learning was working with schools to support vulnerable children.

·       A Co-opted Member asked how and who would be measuring outcomes of the Building Back Stronger ambitions. They stated that the analysis needed to be wider than the officer and teacher voice and should include parents and a wider range of voices. In response, it was confirmed that one of the priorities and initiatives in the Building Back Stronger to 2030, different to the Camden Learning Review, was more work on impact. The accountability framework included 15 developer schools which involved small groups of parents to discuss what information they wanted to know about their child’s school. There were conversations with all Camden schools at the Camden Learning Conference 2024 about expanding the offer. A key part of Building Back Stronger was to hear the voices of parents, teachers and pupils and to hear perspectives that could not be truly captured by officers, such as simpler points of interest, for example how a school would be driving more opportunities in music or sport.

RESOLVED –

THAT the Committee note the content of the report and actions outlined within it in the context of the ambition and aims of the Camden Education Strategy.