Agenda item

The Assistant Director for Education and Resources presented the report which provided the Committee with a summary of the provisional 2012 unvalided assessment and examination results for Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4.  The validated results would be published in January and presented to the Committee. 

            Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Floor standards for 2012.  How many of the 12 schools that fell below the three floor standards in 2010 were still included in the figure of 7 schools which were below for 2012.  Members were advised that there were 4 schools from the original 12 that were included in the 7 for 2012.

·         Members felt that there was much greater opportunity to affect change in Primary Schools than secondary schools due to the fact that many secondary schools were now Academies.  Could officers advise how the Local Authority could influence improvement at the Academies?  Members were informed that Academies were autonomous and were responsible for their own school improvement however the Local Authority retained a role in ensuring that standards across all schools were high.  The Local Authority approached Academies in the same way that maintained schools were approached.  They had to explain their results and show what they were going to do to improve them.  If the Local Authority had concerns regarding Academy schools it would be reported to Ofsted and the Department for Education.

·         Members felt that progress between KS2 and KS4 was important.  The report shows that Peterborough was the lowest in progress compared to national and statistical neighbours.  What was the reason and what was being done about it?  Members were informed that one of the factors perceived by secondary schools to be an issue could be over inflation of national test assessment at KS2.  The Head of School Improvement responded that this was not the case, since the test results are nationally standardised and moderated in the same way that GCSE exams are at age 16.  There was a need to focus on senior leadership teams and set targets against progress through the levels of the national curriculum for all students.  The flight path showing the rate of progress should be set from year 7.  There needed to be more effort at KS3 and not all schools were doing this.  The removal of KS3 SATs had caused problems.

·         How will you improve tracking of progress across schools?  Members were informed that the Head of Departments would be made aware of levels achieved by pupils in year 6 at primary school and this would be used to predict where they would be at GCSE.  There would then be a set of milestones put in place to track along the journey.  That information would then be shared with the rest of the school, Governing Body and parents and monitored.

·         Members wanted to know if the right calibre of governors were being recruited and could the quality of governors be improved.  The Assistant Director for Education and Resources agreed that a strong governing body was critical to driving up standards.  The Local Authority had a strong Governor Services team in place which provided training, support and advice to governors and information on how their school was performing.  Where schools had particular weaknesses the Governor Services team would assist in finding  governors that would meet the needs of that  school e.g. with legal, financial backgrounds.

·         Had payment to Governors ever been considered?  Members were advised that it was against legislation to pay governors.

·         Were the minutes of Governing Body meetings including those of Academies published and in the public domain.  Members were advised that it was not a requirement to publish governing body minutes but some schools did publish them.

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the report and requested that the validated results be brought before the Committee when published.