Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive Officer, Camden Learning.

A presentation will be given to the committee providing the 2024 provisional early years foundation stage result, plus end of key stage results from Primary (Key Stage 2) and Secondary (Key Stage 4 & 5) Camden schools that have been released during July/August.

These outcomes are provisional, with final validated outcomes released later in the year. There is currently limited analysis on the performance of groups within headline data sets. This will be presented to the scrutiny committee in February 2024 when National validated data sets are released.

This data set does not now include end of Key Stage 1 (KS1) results as these are now non statutory, nor 2024 Key Stage 2 (KS2) progress scores as these are not available nationally due to the lack of KS1 outcomes in 2020. Caution is advised generally when considered trends over time due to the impact and legacy of the pandemic.

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

Stephen Hall (Chief Executive Officer, Camden Learning), accompanied by Dame Christine Gilbert (Independent Chair of Camden Learning), presented the report which outlined the provisional school attainment headlines. The presentation slides included headline provisional data on the Foundation Stage Profile (FSP); Year 1 and Year 2 Phonics; Key Stage Two (KS2) combined and separate reading, writing and maths results; KS4 standard, strong and entry pass rates; and KS5 A-Levels results. There was no KS1 or KS3 data because it was not statutory to collect. It was noted that the provisional results should be looked at with caution because it was provisional data shared by schools themselves. There would be more detailed data and analysis for different groups of children’s attainment results in the February 2025 report.

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

·       A Member stated that it would be more useful to be given the disadvantage gap comparing this year’s Camden gap to Camden’s gap in multiple previous years, rather than only comparing this year’s Camden gap to the last year national gap. It was confirmed Camden Learning would take that feedback away.

A Member asked for an impact assessment on the ‘every child a reader’ initiative. In response, it was confirmed it was still fairly early in the initiative, which was complex to measure particularly with the absence of KS1 results, but the phonics measures had shown year on year improvement.

·       In response to a Member asking why KS2 maths results were low, it was explained that the results were not low and a 2-3% drop on the previous year was not statistically significant, with the results remaining above London and national average.

·       A Member noted the KS4 disadvantage gap was poor in Camden and nationally. The disadvantage gap figures included children who needed SEND support and were from a disadvantaged background, thus taking exams in mainstream schools. The figures framed that Camden was performing better than last years’ national average. It was confirmed this was an area that needed further analysis and Camden Learning was speaking to schools about the intersectionality, poor attenders, and other complex metrics and factors which impacted on the disadvantage gap. This issue was difficult to unpick and there was not an easy answer. In response to a Member, it was also noted that it was not possible to say yet if changes to curriculums or assessments had impacted this area.

·       It was confirmed that the data included all types of school in the borough apart from private schools.

·       A Member asked for more data on the trends and developments in KS5 results. It was confirmed Camden Learning would provide that data in the February 2025 report.

·       In relation to KS4 and KS5 results stalling over time and below ambition, a Member stated that was a not a new issue. The Member asked if there was broader work to be done in looking what happens in the five years between KS3 and KS4 to understand where it was children were stumbling. In response, it was stated that some schools were performing very well and others less so. Many resources were being focussed in this area and learning being reviewed from high performing schools. Camden Learning aimed to promote more collaboration and improve connections between KS5 settings, similar to the collaboration observed among Camden schools. For KS3, Camden Learning was looking at pathways, curriculum design, and the quality of teaching. In response to a question asking what distinguished the better performing schools, it was stated strong performing schools had strong leadership, high expectations, and high-quality teaching. The two best performing schools in the borough were girls schools and girls outperformed boys in the data.

·       In relation to GCSE pass grades, it was stated that the national results were distressing, where only 60% of the country were achieving the expected standard and different parts of the country were skewed in performance. London performed better than nationally which was due additional resources and focus. When comparing Camden to other London boroughs, certain areas with significantly more or less deprivation or differing issues may not serve as fair benchmarks. It was most important for Camden to compare itself to the statistical neighbours in London and looking to learning from other London boroughs. There would be further data to share in February in this area.

·       It was confirmed there was an ongoing national curriculum and assessment review which Camden was feeding into and would be speaking from the lens of various stakeholders. It was stated that Camden would feed in using evidence-based learning initiatives and not just untested ideas.

·       A Member commented that there was a huge amount of churn of children in and out of the borough at each level of education, which should be considered when comparing Camden data between key stages. Camden faced inequality in children’s levels of disadvantage from the start of early education. Primary schools were, however, providing strong support to help more disadvantaged children succeed.

·       A Member asked if analysis could be provided on the levels of attainment results of those pupils who were already in Camden and those arriving, also to specifically see if it was high performing students arriving in the borough. It was confirmed that mobility data could be drawn from the admissions team, however it was noted that academic progress was not always linear, and students had varied educational experiences.

·       A Co-opted Member asked if comparative data benchmarks higher than the London standard could be aimed for, such as independent school results, because ultimately the children would be entering the same workforce. The attainment for private schools was much higher, and that was a gap Camden should want to close. In response, it was confirmed that Camden wanted to be ambitious and aim for the highest benchmark, and at this point in time that was aiming for above the London benchmark. Independent schools were self-selecting, whereas the state sector had many other challenges to compete with which impacted results and it was a different context of pupils. Different schools across the borough had different ambitions with different targets depending on their context. A Member stated that schools had different bases of children, with some schools having many parents who were able to pay for extra tuition and other schools where there was a high proportion of children eligible for pupil premium. In response, it was stated that Camden Learning was looking to see where schools with a high proportion of disadvantaged children were performing well, and learn from their strong teaching and learning models, good curriculum design and high aspirations. Camden schools were good at working as a family of schools, where some schools lead initiatives which other schools could successfully model which improved outcomes for all. A Member requested examples in the validated report of school initiatives and analysis of their impact.

·       A Member asked what happened to young people who did not achieve A-Levels or other qualifications. In response, it was stated that Camden Learning did not hold data on post-KS5 destinations as it was beyond their remit, however there was a rich discussion in post-16 destinations. A prospectus had been developed which presented options of academic and vocational pathways to help young people choose their next steps. There would be further data to support discussion in this area in the February report.

RESOLVED –

THAT the Committee note and comment on the contents of the presentation in the context of the ambition and aims of the Camden Education Strategy.