Agenda item

Attendees: Attendees:

-       Sarah Morgan – Chief Education Officer

-       Ed Price – EAS Challenge Adviser / Interim Service and Strategic Policy Lead

-       Hayley Davies Edwards – EAS Principal Challenge Adviser - Newport

The Committee was advised that the Strategic Director – People was unable to attend the meeting and had asked that his apologies were offered at the meeting.

The Chief Education Officer informed the Committee that the Deputy Chief Education Officer was unable to attend the meeting today and offered his apologies.

The Education Achievement Service (EAS) Advisers presented an overview of the EAS Business Plan, drew the Committee’s attention to the main points and invited the Committee to ask any questions they felt were relevant.

The Members asked the following questions;

·         A Member enquired whether the “state of flux” referred to in the report in which the education system found itself would stabilise. The EAS Advisers explained that the new range of GCSE’s would commence in 2023 following which there should be some stability. There was a high magnitude of change happening in particular around accountability and curriculum, in schools and Education Departments. While generally positive about change high up and across the region, more detail is awaited.

The Chief Education Officer explained that some of the changes included: not being able to use Level Two results for accountability purposes, or; not being able to include BTEC results for measuring progress, due to which it would be difficult to gauge the difference and measure progress between schools. She advised that there would be an Elected Member Briefing on the subject to ensure all Councillors were made aware of the changes.

·         A Member asked about the changing pressures upon schools.  The Chief Education Officer advised the Committee that Newport City schools had the highest levels of engagement in the new curriculum workshops and learning. For this reason, Newport schools came out on top of the region. The EAS Advisers added that the reduction in Stage 3 Public Accountability Measures to remove requirement for Schools from Foundation to Key Stage Three to report at a local or regional level was designed to take some of the pressures away.

·         A Member expressed concern about young people who leave primary schools that are categorised as Green with aspiration and move onto secondary schools categorised as Red or schools placed in Special Measures and asked how would the EAS improve Red and Special Measures schools over the next year.

The EAS Challenge Adviser explained that the EAS were involved in a project with Professor Waters upon the difference between Year 6 and Year 7 teaching. This work would have included collaboration between two primary schools and a secondary school to establish why there is that disconnect between Key Stage 2 and 3, and reaching the necessary foundation needed for Key Stage 4.

If a secondary school was struggling it needed to work within a Peer network to find support from its peers. Teaching and Leadership were everything when it came to a school performing well. The EAS Adviser referred to the Excellence in Teaching and Leadership Framework (ETLF), which was a self-evaluation toolkit being developed around excellence in teaching and leadership. Schools would use this toolkit to set a baseline and identify next steps for improvement by using a RAG rating across a number of different areas to show the school leaders where improvement was needed. Head and Deputy Head Teachers all attend workshops through the year to increase awareness of best practice. A copy of the Excellence in Teaching and Leadership Framework self-evaluation toolkit could be circulated to Members of the Committee when available.

The EAS Representative explained that there was research stating that young people become more susceptible to peer pressure from the age of 8 or 9 and primary schools managed this well, but as a young person joined a secondary school it becomes much more difficult. There was also the fact that young people reach adolescence around the same time as they join secondary school.

·         A Member of the Committee asked about the transition from Primary to Secondary schools when pupils were joining from Green, Amber or Red categorised primary schools, whether this placed some young people at a disadvantage and what was being done to support the young people.

The Officer explained that the same protocols are available for each cohort of young people, with the focus being on one element at a time, for instance attendance levels. The EAS Advisers clarified that research had been undertaken on how the clusters work and what made them successful and the EAS was working upon creating data profiles for each cluster and the data transfer between schools, which was identified as important in the Manchester University report commissioned by the EAS.  Schools categorised as Red were provided with more support than other schools, which equated to 25 days a year. The support provided by the EAS and other local schools was all directed at improving the outcomes for the young people.

·           The Committee discussed providing each school with aspirational achievements, which could be used to show the way towards a higher categorisation. The Chief Education Officer clarified that schools that are in the Red, are so because of Estyn’s judgement and they will remain in the Red until Estyn decides otherwise. The EAS Advisers added that the aspirational achievements would be difficult to measure.

·         The Committee requested explanation for the terms Step One, Two and Three to be provided. The EAS Advisers explained that Step One was a data driven judgement that groups schools together based on their performance but Welsh Government had changed, Step Two was related to the school’s ability to improve (rated A to D), and Step Three concerns the support category of the school (Green to Red). Step One was an issue because WG states that at a local or regional level Key Performance Indicators could not be used for accountability purposes.

·         A Member enquired who was responsible for a school in the Red category. The Chief Education Officer explained that at an individual school level the responsibility lies with the leadership team in that school. The Central Education Department provides challenge to the school for under-performance, using warning notices, statutory powers and sometimes replacing Chairs of Governors and commissions the EAS to promote those standards, but the corporate responsibility remains with the Local Authority. There were monthly meetings between EAS and the Deputy Chief Education Officer to discuss a wide range of items and this was a frequent item.

·         A Member expressed concern that the changes to the education system in Wales might leave young people with Additional Learning Needs behind. The EAS Advisers stated that it was their role to rationalise the curriculum change for all young people including those with additional learning needs to ensure that didn’t happen. While the curriculum change would affect learners with additional learning needs, there were other changes in legislation happening, that would further support young people with additional learning needs.

·         A Member enquired about what defined a young person as a ‘vulnerable’ learner.  The EAS Advisers explained that a young person who was not performing to the best of their ability would be classed as vulnerable, including: learners with additional learning needs; Looked after Children; Young Carers; young people in receipt of Free School Meals; young people who have specific needs that maybe only a school know about, and included young people who should be excelling but do not.

·         A Member expressed concern that the EAS Business Plan did not contain enough about the delivery of Welsh in relation to the Welsh Language Charter and the disconnect between what’s contained in the Business Plan and what’s happening in schools. He asked what the EAS was doing to ensure Welsh was taught appropriately in schools.

The EAS Advisers informed the Committee that Estyn had stated that the outcomes relating to the Welsh language education in English speaking schools were strong and the EAS had a team to deliver support Welsh as a second language delivery in schools. The team feed into and share best practice on a national level which is driving forward progress. Newport faces a challenge due to its geographical location near the English border and the demographical make up of its citizens.

·         A Member of the Committee wished to know the method of categorising a school. The EAS Representative explained that EAS use a grid of qualities rated from A to D and Green to Red. The EAS Challenge Adviser and other education professionals rate the school on 30 to 40 different items. This information was then fed into the grid to produce a categorisation for the school. Leadership and teaching are the two most important aspects, and if there was no clear vision for a school then a Red category could result.  The EAS would provide a link to be circulated to Members of the Committee for information.

The Chief Education Officer clarified that there needed to be qualifying work done to ensure the validity of the ratings provided by the EAS Challenge Adviser and education professionals. This was done by a Gwent based board, and again by a national board in Cardiff and there had been a very low proportion of judgements challenged and no judgements changed at any of the boards.

·      The Committee enquired how the EAS knew that a young person would do equally as well in another school. The EAS Officers informed the Committee that this was something that they were considering to find a solution in part due to the end of the previously required data reporting.  It was clarified that they still could track the distance travelled by a young person and their actual achievement distance a young person travels was always an indicator as to their success. The only young people that would not achieve were those with additional learning needs. Primary schools are so good that all young people would achieve to some extent. Going forwards the EAS and the Education Department would be using much more qualitative measures. Examples were provided of the education system in Finland that does not formally test young people until the age of 16 and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), both of which the Welsh Government were talking about.

The EAS Officers explained that half of schools would be below the average line and that over a six-year period the worst performing school will improve to do better than the best performing school 6 years ago.  The Chief Education Officer explained that more needed to be learned from the self-evaluation and that this would lead to better performing education and schools in Newport.

The EAS Officers offered to return in the summer to provide a seminar to Members on the changes that have happened since they presented in July 2018.

The Chair thanked the Officers for attending and they were excused from the meeting. 

Conclusions

The Committee agreed to forward this Minute as a detailed record of its consideration of the Draft EAS Business Plan 2019-20 to the Cabinet to consider alongside the Draft Plan in particular the following comments and recommendations:

·         The Committee’s overall conclusion upon the report was that standards and levels of teaching is maintained and progressed without the ability to use school level data. 

·         Following consideration of the evidence gathered through questioning the Officers upon the draft EAS Business Plan 2019-20 the impression from the EAS and Education Department is that they have a greater confidence that they know the level schools are at now, using a collaborative approach between the EAS, Education Department and Schools and also the cluster approach to schools.  There is also a greater understanding of the journey of the young person from primary to secondary.

·         The Committee raised concerns about the transition from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3, which they felt was an area for improvement and requested that when completed Professor Waters’ research into the difference between teaching in Year 6 and Year 7 be issued to the Committee for information.

·         The Committee raised concerns relating to the reduction in staffing in EAS is now 44% smaller than in 2012, which is shifting the reliance for support onto other schools in the network and peers rather than the EAS.  Over reliance upon other schools could impact upon them adversely.

·         The Committee recommends that the EAS should have the confidence to push the Welsh Language forward in their Business Plan as a priority in accordance with the Welsh Language Charter.

The Committee formally requests the following from the Education Achievement Service to be circulated to Members of the Committee for information:

·         The school categorisation matrix and supporting information;

·         The Excellence in Teaching and Leadership Toolkit;

·         The research into cluster based working by Manchester University, when completed;

·         The EAS to provide an update seminar to the Committee upon the changes and progress made since July 2018, when the Committee received their first update on accountability and curriculum.