Invitees:

Deborah McMillan, Corporate Director – Education and Transformation

Cllr Huw David, Deputy Leader

Cllr Hailey Townsend, Cabinet Member, Childrens Social Services and Equalities

Nicola Echanis, Head of Strategy Commissioning and Partnerships

Sue Roberts, Group Manager – School Improvement

Paul Wolstenholme, Bridgend Link Adviser- Central South Consortium

Robert Hopkins, Head of Service - Central South Consortium

Hannah Woodhouse, Managing Director - Central South Consortium

Cllr Chris Elmore - Chair of Joint Committee - Central South Consortium

Mr Ben Blackwell, Headteacher – Penybont

Mr David Jenkins, Headteacher – Brynteg

Miss Andrea May, Assistant Headteacher - Brynteg

The Scrutiny Officer introduced a report to Committee that provided Members with feedback on the school standards report for foundation Phase, Key Stage 2,3 and 4 outcomes for 2015

Members questioned the fluctuation in the three year trend and noted that there was information for improvement but questioned how this would be implemented.  They  questioned Officers on how the stats compared to other areas in the Consortium  and asked also if the Foundation Phase had been identified as an area for further improvement.  The Bridgend Link Advisor Central South Consortium advised that Key Stage 2 was not improving as rapidly as they had hoped but they were continuing to develop and build on the achievements.  He added that they were looking at ways to build on strength from infancy.  He further added that he did not have the exact figures at the meeting, however he confirmed that Bridgend were better overall than the Consortium and Wales average.  He would also clarify the point about the Foundation Phase back to Committee in writing.

A Member added that it would be helpful to see UK wide results as a comparison to see where Bridgend were in the table.  The Bridgend Link Advisor stated that it was difficult to provide a comparison of figures as England do not have assessments whereas Wales does.  He added that in England students can only sit exams once they have completed their course, in Wales they sit them throughout the academic year.  He further added however that a national model, Assessment and Learning in Practice Settings (ALPS), was used by schools to compare with other parts of the UK.  The Committee therefore requested that this information be shared in future reports.

Members questioned the reliability of the Teacher Assessments from the Challenge Advisors and if they were robust and reliable enough.  The Bridgend Link Advisor stated that the Consortium were developing a national programme to improve the reliability of the Teacher Assessments and there would be a national report on this where they would look at schools outside of the Consortium to compare the approach and systems used in completing the assessments. 

A Member noted that there was no improvement in post 16 stats and what was being prepared to address the issue.  The Bridgend Link Advisor, Central South Consortium advised that a lot of work was being undertaken for post 16’s and they were working closely with head teachers to discuss how they could work collaboratively delivering sixth form with Bridgend College. 

Members advised that it would be helpful to demonstrate that the support from the Central South Consortium was robust enough as there had been criticism that there was not enough support from them.  The Committee suggested it would perhaps be beneficial if there were specific case studies that demonstrated where they had intervened and given support to a school that had now shown signs of improvement. 

Members queried whether sickness absence in teachers was a contributing factor to poor school performance as children achieved better results when they had continuity in their teaching arrangements.  Members also considered that schools would benefit from specialist HR support and if this was something the Consortium could provide to schools.  The Bridgend Link Advisor, Central South Consortium stated that there was a high number of supply teachers working in the schools within the consortium and this was something they were looking to improve on.  He advised that he did not have an analysis of staff attendance and the potential impact on student performance.  He further advised members that specialist HR advice to schools was important and a shared service with the consortium was being considered as he believed this would provide better outcomes and avoid conflicting HR advice.  He added that the consortium were keen to recruit the right staff at Leadership level as they would then be able to support the recruitment of teaching and support staff. 

Members asked if information was available for Post 16 education as a comparison as this was the stage that students would be competing nationally for the same universities and employment places.  Officers agreed with the statement from members and advised that at a future meeting they would produce figures for the Committee.  Members added that it may be more beneficial for a Member and School Engagement Panel to be set up to discuss the findings. The Head of Strategy Commissioning and Partnerships reassured the Committee that Bridgend were doing well and they were working with various organisations across the border to learn lessons of good practice.

A Member queried that in the report it stated that in Autumn 2014 the LA issued “cause for concern” letters to 5 schools and in the Autumn 2015 the LA issued 2 “cause for concern” letters.  Members asked if the two schools issued in Autumn 2015 were previously issued the letters in the Autumn 2014.   The Deputy Leader stated that these letters were issued for the first time to the schools in 2015 and for different reasons to the letters issued in 2014.  They were issued with the cause for concern letters as they were of high risk of dropping down a category when inspected so the Authority took proactive measures in order that the school take preventative action immediately.

A Member asked when the Local Government and Consortium would use their statutory powers of intervention and questioned where notification of an issue came from; teachers, parents, trade unions etc.  The Bridgend Link Advisor, Central South Consortium advised that warning signs would usually be picked up by the challenge advisor and a categorisation system would be used to determine what level of intervention was needed.  He added that Estyn could also intervene if they had cause for concern.  The Chair of the Joint Committee – Central South Consortium added that the consortium had also been inspected by Estyn and a list of recommendations for improvement were issued to them

A member stated that it was disappointing that no school in the consortium had been judged excellent and questioned what methods were being put in place to drive the educational standards up.  The Bridgend Link Advisor, Central South Consortium advised that schools were being encouraged to work together to learn and share best practice and the consortium would be able to assist with the funding for primary and secondary schools in doing so.  He added that there was a focus on driving schools up from good to excellent.

A Member asked for reassurance that BCBC were getting value for money from the Consortium.  The Bridgend Link Advisor, Central South Consortium stated that the consortium have to make difficult decisions about where to spend money.  He added that the Joint Committee agreed a 5% cut in the budget each year but stated that frontline services in schools would not see a reduction in their services.  He advised members that he could provide a written response to the Committee on the key changes to the Consortium including creating bespoke services and the recruitment of quality challenge advisors to achieve a better approach to the recruitment of teachers, particularly senior staff. 

Conclusions

The Committee complimented the report and welcomed the changes that had been taken on board as a result of the workshop held with Members on school data. 

Given the fact that pupils from Wales would be in competition with pupils from other parts of the UK, both for jobs and university places, the Committee asked whether further comparative information could be provided in relation to performance at Key Stage 4 and Post-16 for the rest of the UK.  Although it was reported that this might be difficult because of the differences in education, for example in the curriculum and exam boards, Members were advised that a national model, Assessment and Learning in Practice Settings (ALPS), was used by schools to compare with other parts of the UK.  The Committee therefore requested that this information be shared in future reports.

The Committee also requested that whilst there is information relating to the Consortium contained in the report, it would be useful for it to contain case study examples of where the Consortium has assisted in school improvement to evidence its success.

Members raised concerns over the robustness and reliability of Teacher Assessments and welcomed the statement that a National Programme was being introduced to improve the moderation of these assessments and the methods by which the Challenge Advisers consider and challenge them.  Members felt that the Committee would benefit from receiving further ‘Value Added’ data from the Fischer Family Trust for both the annual school report and in relation to any future reports on Free School Meals Attainment.

Members sought clarification on the point that Foundation Phase was identified by Officers at the meeting as an area for further improvement but not identified as such in the report. 

Additional Information

Members asked for further comparative information for the other Local Authorities in the Central South Consortium in relation to their schools that are under Estyn monitoring, in order to establish how Bridgend compares.

Members asked whether there had been any analysis done in relation to staff attendance and the impact on pupil performance, similar to that associated with pupil attendance and performance.

The Committee support the exploration and possible development of a shared HR Service within the Consortium in order to standardise provision both within the LA, for Primary and Secondary and also across the Local Authorities within the Consortium.