Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive Officer, Camden Learning.

This report provides the committee with an overview and analysis of Camden school performance. It contains an analysis of overall published school outcomes from the academic year 2023-24 in Early Years, the Year 1 Phonics check, Key Stage (KS) 2, KS4 and KS5 alongside other key performance indicators including Ofsted inspection outcomes, attendance, and suspensions data. Three-year trends alongside ranking against local and national averages are given where known. Due to the impact of the pandemic on assessment, the three-year trends cover 2019, 2023 and 2024, so they are more comparable. In 2023 Ofqual confirmed a return to pre-pandemic grading with an allowance for disruption so that overall results would be similar to those of 2019. There are no KS1 to KS2 progress scores this year or next due to the cancellation of statutory testing in 2020. KS1 assessments are no longer statutory so not represented in this report. Data at Key Stage 4 and 5 is still provisional, and final data will not be available until late February 2025 however significant changes are not anticipated.

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 (Chair, Camden Learning), summarised the report. Appendix 1 provided an overview of Camden schools performance including an analysis of overall published school outcomes from the academic year 2023-24 in Early Years, the Year 1 Phonics check, Key Stage 2 (KS2), Key Stage 4 (KS4) and Key Stage 5 (KS5) alongside other key performance indicators including Ofsted inspection outcomes, attendance, and suspensions data. Appendix 2 set out the 2023-24 annual review of the implementation of Camden’s education strategy, Building Back Stronger.

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

·       In relation to pupil suspensions, a Member acknowledged the challenging circumstances faced by schools, families, and pupils, noting that the aftermath of COVID-19 had contributed to behaviour issues. They asked whether this trend was expected to be a temporary phenomenon, given the positive emphasis on early intervention. The officer responded that while COVID-19 had had a national impact, Camden was performing positively overall regarding suspensions, with rates lower than both London and national benchmarks. They explained that more pathways were available for young people, and headteachers were keen to avoid exclusions. The officer also highlighted ongoing support and signposting for alternatives. While recognising the difficulty for school governors in making these decisions, they assured that everything possible was being done to provide alternatives before suspensions were implemented.

·       A Co-opted Member pointed out the difficulty in presenting school data in a way that clearly highlighted variations across schools, noting the significant differences between them. They asked about the extent to which low-attaining disadvantaged children were represented at each school and what the variation in their chances of attainment were between the schools. They explained that schools varied in terms of student composition, with some comprehensives having a much smaller proportion of disadvantaged children. They inquired how the data could be presented to clarify these differences. Camden Learning responded that they had this data and also noted that Camden had a mixed cohort. The girls' schools tended to perform better than mixed schools, and overall, only 63% of the Year 11 cohort had come from Camden primary schools, meaning the cohorts were different when comparing. It was also mentioned that Camden Learning had data on entry points and measures to track these variations.

·       A Co-opted Member highlighted that there was little mention of vocational qualifications in the report, particularly BTECs, which were significant qualifications taken by many Camden children. They emphasised the importance of including these achievements, as failing to do so would overlook the accomplishments of a large number of Camden students. Camden Learning responded that they would include more information on vocational qualifications in the future. Camden Learning expressed pride in the work being done in the area, particularly from a post-16 perspective, including T-levels, and assured they would take the feedback into consideration.

·       A Co-opted Member asked about the Sussex University project, requesting to see the plan and inquired how it had been evaluated. Camden Learning explained that the project was based on work around belonging and aimed to understand what this meant for young people, gathering insights from the children involved. Each school was building its own action plan based on their specific cohort and the findings from the project in its first year. Camden Learning noted that evaluations would be available in the summer, conducted by the university, and they would be able to report back on the outcomes.

·       A Member asked about attainment in reading and writing at KS2, specifically what could be done for students not meeting expectations and what percentage of those students had SEND backgrounds. Camden Learning responded that 28% of students were not secondary school-ready and were unable to access education effectively, with some schools performing better than others. Camden Learning’s focus was on sharing best practices, highlighting that some teachers were extremely skilled and experienced, supported by high ambition from leadership. They also emphasised the importance of tracking students and knowing their progress. They noted challenges such as mobility in schools and limited time to make a significant impact. Camden Learning expressed the aim to ensure all schools performed at their best and mentioned efforts to support children in Year 7, building on their progress into secondary school. They pointed to the need for improved transition guidance and the sharing of best practices for teachers, ensuring they understood the primary education children had received.

·       A Co-opted Member expressed concern over poor attendance rates, noting that while Camden ranked highly on many metrics, attendance remained low. Regarding Appendix 1, next steps and activities, they queried the role of School Inclusion Support Officers in supporting schools, asking for clarity on the type of support provided. They noted that families were desperate for help, with barriers to school attendance extending beyond attendance issues alone. Camden Learning stated that attendance remained a constant challenge and a key focus. School Inclusion Support Officers worked to identify barriers to attendance, help schools recognise those at risk of persistent absence, and ensure the right support was in place. Those officers identified appropriate services, such as early help, social care, or SEND support, and facilitated meetings with parents. It was acknowledged that attendance caused significant anxiety for both parents and schools. Family Support Workers had been effective in embedding themselves within schools, building strong relationships with families and communities. The existing Family Support Worker currently working in schools were externally funded, and there was the ability for comparisons between schools with and without them to assess their impact. There was a desire to expand this support to all schools to help families feel supported rather than judged.

·       A Member raised concerns about KS4 outcomes, noting that only 19% of Black Caribbean students achieved a strong pass, meaning 81% did not. Camden Learning agreed that it was important to reframe the data and emphasised the need for schools to analyse who was not achieving and where progress was being made. Wider work was required on racial literacy and anti-racist policies, ensuring teachers understood racial and cultural differences. Sessions on anti-bias and racism were being delivered for school leaders. Camden Learning was also working to amplify pupils' voices so they could understand and advocate for their educational rights, ensuring schools listened to their experiences. A range of strategies was being implemented to address these disparities. It was also noted that Camden was a driver of the Mayor of London’s Inclusion Charter.

·       Camden Learning emphasised the need to focus on schools that were not achieving expected outcomes. Nationally, it was noted that students who did not meet expected standards at KS2 had only a 1 in 8 chance of achieving good results at KS4. There was a need for a more intensive focus on these schools this year.

·       A Member raised concerns about SEND data on page 16, noting that progress measures were not always useful, and suggested looking at Attainment 8 data over time from 2019 to 2024. It was highlighted that Camden’s data had remained around 0.5 before declining, with London data remaining steady and England’s data increasing. However, SEND support data had dropped by two points in Camden, while both London and England had seen an increase. This had impacted Camden’s rankings, which had shifted from 17^th to 32^nd and 12^th to 24^th. The Member queried the reasons for this decline, citing feedback from schools about bureaucratic barriers in completing forms, parents feeling unsupported in accessing Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), and a lack of resources to analyse the impact of negative data. Camden Learning acknowledged these concerns and noted that Fisher Family Trust (FFT) data had been used inconsistently across schools in the past, with some schools not using it at all. Last year, it was agreed that all schools would use the same system, allowing them to share data across Camden for the first time. FFT data was now being used to challenge schools and set targets. It was noted that SEND data was complex, particularly when national comparisons included mixed cohorts, and that EHCP eligibility varied across boroughs. It was also reported that two schools previously identified for improvement had since been rated as ‘Good’, and the impact of these changes should be seen over time. Camden Learning agreed that the London-wide trend was an important factor to consider in efforts to raise standards across all groups.

·       A Member commended the report and acknowledged the challenges schools had faced in recent years, including staff losses. They noted that Camden had made progress in many areas, with significant contributions from Camden Learning and school staff. The Member raised concerns about the attainment for disadvantaged white working-class boys. They asked for Camden Learning’s perspective on this, how improvements could be made, and how political rhetoric could be more constructive, given that discussions on this topic had not led to significant change. Camden Learning highlighted the stark contrasts within this issue and noted that disadvantage encompassed a broad group affected by multiple factors, including attendance, housing, aspirations, diet, and health - some of which were beyond a school’s control. A key strategy for schools was ensuring pupils remained in school so they could be monitored and supported, with a focus on high-quality teaching and tracking progress at both group and school levels. Some schools had placed a greater emphasis on this issue. Camden Learning also stressed the importance of fostering a sense of belonging, engaging with pupils to understand their perceived barriers, and adapting school approaches accordingly. The term ‘white disadvantage’ was described as clumsy, given its complexities and historical context. Family Support Workers were identified as playing a role in building relationships, tracking pupils, and strengthening pedagogy to support disadvantaged students effectively.

·       A Member raised the issue of attendance and the barriers that may have been affecting it. They highlighted the importance of creating a nurturing and attractive school environment, noting that factors such as bullying or curriculum could impact attendance. The Member emphasised the need for schools to be places that children wanted to attend and engage with. Camden Learning spoke about the school environment being central to addressing these barriers, describing schools as places where students felt welcomed and able to engage. They referenced Appendix 1, Building Back Stronger education strategy update, which outlined activities aimed at broadening the curriculum and ensuring schools fostered communities that promoted aspirations and lived experiences. Camden schools were described as welcoming places and inclusive. There was further discussion on other barriers to learning and attendance, including behaviour, social ostracism, and issues with timetables.

·       A Member raised concerns about bullying, particularly prevalent in some secondary schools, and asked about the direction of travel on bullying incidents and rates. Camden Learning responded that while they did not collect data on bullying incidents, schools did track the types and frequency of bullying, which were then reported to individual governing boards. Ofsted also reviewed this data, and the Camden Professional Partners spoke to pupils about their experiences in school. Camden Learning highlighted that there were many layers to how bullying was explored, but they could not provide the specific data. A key issue was how well schools responded to it.

·       A Member discussed KS4 results, specifically Progress 8. They acknowledged that Progress 8 might not be a perfect indicator but argued that it should not be dismissed entirely. The Member expressed concern about Camden’s low rankings in London on various indicators and suggested looking into and understanding the reasons behind it. They emphasised that while Progress 8 should not be the sole focus, it provided one useful perspective alongside other data. Camden Learning responded that they did not ignore Progress 8 and that school leaders shared the same view, headteachers were not all particularly keen on it, but schools had to work with the data available.

·       A Member noted that the issue of underachievement among working-class boys, particularly Bangladeshi and Caribbean boys, was not new. They suggested that more sensitive analysis and an intersectional approach could be used. The Member also expressed concern that despite a wide range of initiatives, which seemed too generic, these students might face a lifetime of low achievement, and the achievement gap was not closing. Camden Learning responded that the two highest-performing schools were all-girls schools. They explained that the advice provided was not generic consultancy but was focused on specific subjects and the unique needs and priorities of each school. Camden Learning mentioned that part of their work involved looking at schools that were bucking the trend, acknowledging that it was a stubborn issue that continued to be worked on, which they found frustrating. A Member sympathised with these comments but suggested that mixed schools might have the potential to close the achievement gap. They urged Camden Learning to look at what these schools were doing and share good practices, as well as consider research from other areas. Camden Learning explained that they were analysing subjects across schools, focusing on subjects and groups within those subjects. They also noted the introduction of a common data platform in secondary schools, allowing all schools to access and view this data. Camden Learning further highlighted the North London Research School in Camden, which served as a useful resource base. Camden Learning added that small-scale initiatives, such as using community mentors and improving the transition between primary and secondary schools, were being trialled. It was emphasised that the strong results in the girls' schools were not solely due to the gender of the students, but were also the result of excellent practices in those schools.

·       A Co-opted Member raised concerns about the differences in how schools created their SEND registers, noting that one school might include a student on their register while another might not with the same needs. They asked if Camden Learning could help create a wider understanding of SEND support across Camden, particularly regarding ordinary available provisions and how SEND children who did not receive an EHCP were supported. They expressed a desire to understand why some schools appeared to be doing better than others, as the approach seemed to vary across schools. Camden Learning responded that this was a live issue regarding the identification of need and consistency. They explained that work was ongoing to create a common understanding of what ordinary available provisions would look like, as part of a change programme. It was also noted that a session had been held that day with 30-40 teachers, where barriers and strengths in the system had been discussed.

·       A Co-opted Member raised concerns about suspensions and exclusions, stating that the report did not provide the necessary information to address the problem or reduce suspensions and exclusions. As a theory, the Member said if a reception teacher were asked about which children they were worried about, those children could often end up the ones struggling in the future. The Member stressed the importance of early intervention, suggesting that it needed to be very early, as reception teachers knew their classes well and could spot potential issues. They also noted the importance of understanding factors like reading age, disengagement with school, and late SEND support. For permanent exclusions, the Member asked if there was a way for schools to report near misses and what had changed in those success cases. Camden Learning responded that they took great care in identifying children early, but acknowledged that life experiences could put some children more at risk. They agreed that early intervention was crucial, although issues could also manifest at secondary school. They pointed out that while there were many small primary schools, secondary schools were much larger, with different relationships and dynamics. Camden Learning highlighted the importance of a relational approach and strong pastoral teams in making a difference in how children were cared for and engaged in schools. Regarding near misses, Camden Learning stated that while they had evidence, they did not currently track this data. However, they assured that Camden performed better than the national average, even with challenging cohorts. They added that they had very strong pathways in place and noted the value of measuring these outcomes, but also emphasised that looking at individual stories and case studies was important.

·       A Member noted that when comparing the nursery reception cohort to Year 6, struggling children could often be identified. However, doing so without labelling them, such as by using indicators like Free School Meals (FSM) status, was challenging. They asked how this could be done in a positive way. In response, Camden Learning explained that one key challenge was the curriculum’s dramatic changes, particularly as children progressed through school. A major point of disengagement occurred when children struggled with reading, which hindered their ability to access the broader curriculum. They emphasised that ensuring children could read by age 7 was critical and that fostering engagement required a curriculum in which children saw themselves represented. This could be supported by diversifying the curriculum and ensuring a representative teaching workforce and school leadership. While Early Years education was crucial, Camden Learning highlighted that the entire primary curriculum journey needed to prepare children for secondary school. They pointed out that suspensions were a greater issue in secondary schools than in primary schools, often linked to students’ struggles in accessing the curriculum. Identifying children at key transition points was essential, particularly in primary school, and Camden Learning was working to enhance this through improvements to the Camden school report and discussions with schools about annual surveys for pupils and parents. They also noted that  secondary school students sometimes felt they lacked a trusted adult to turn to, which they aimed to address by gaining a deeper understanding of school ethos. Plans were in place to establish a reporting system for these insights by next year.

·       A Member observed that while primary schools performed well, there appeared to be a shift when students transitioned to secondary school. They asked what external comparisons Camden was making, noting that other London boroughs had schools with similar demographics. In response, Camden Learning explained that they consulted with a senior secondary advisor with extensive expertise, who could direct them to schools outside Camden facing similar challenges. They acknowledged that Camden’s strong internal collaboration sometimes led to a more insular approach, and engaging with external schools provided valuable insights.

·       A Member emphasised the importance of school leadership for all measures and asked about the impact of coaching for headteachers, how results were tracked, and how it contributed to improving outcomes. Camden Learning responded that the impact of coaching was positive, with headteachers noting the support. They explained that coaching was set up more as a retention measure, recognising the stressful and challenging nature of the job. Camden Learning highlighted the importance of retaining headteachers, for which Camden had a good track record, and giving them time to step back and reflect.

·       A Member asked what areas Camden Learning was focusing on to improve performance in schools that were consistently underperforming, and what those schools were not doing. Camden Learning explained that they looked at specific subjects where improvement was needed. They mentioned that project boards, which included school leaders and chairs of governors, worked intensively with these schools. Camden Learning noted that correlated support and holding schools to account were key to helping improve performance. They intended to continue to challenge schools robustly and seek a positive impact in the coming year.

·       A Member raised concerns about exclusions, noting that over 50% of exclusions came from two schools. They asked what Camden Learning had done with these schools and why the exclusion rates were so high. Camden Learning explained that the schools with high exclusion rates had gone through difficult leadership transitions and faced challenges with general behaviour. They also acknowledged that there could have been one-off incidents involving several pupils. Camden Learning highlighted that they were effective at showing alternatives to exclusions, aiming to reduce the number of exclusions overall.

RESOLVED – 

THAT the Committee note the report.